The Rolling Stones "Hackney Diamonds"

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Of course it does. Middle class people don't feel real emotions. What are they going to sing about. Running out of quinoa? We've seen what happens when middle class people make music. Coldplay. Radiohead. Is that what you want? Cos that's what will happen.
Click to expand...
Good point. Radiohead must have been working class for their first 3 albums then…..
 
atypical_boro said:
Does it matter what class they are especially?
Click to expand...
Not usually. However, the album title refers to broken car windows (apparently), so the band is attempting to portray themselves as something they are not.
Mauvaise foi as my old philosophy lecturer would have said.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Of course it does. Middle class people don't feel real emotions. What are they going to sing about. Running out of quinoa? We've seen what happens when middle class people make music. Coldplay. Radiohead. Is that what you want? Cos that's what will happen.
Click to expand...
This is a polite platform (well, usually). As such there is no justification to mention Coldplay or Radiohead.
Thank you.
 
The Ruthsayer said:
Not usually. However, the album title refers to broken car windows (apparently), so the band is attempting to portray themselves as something they are not.
Mauvaise foi as my old philosophy lecturer would have said.
Click to expand...
I think you are reading far, far too much into an album title.
 
The Ruthsayer said:
Not usually. However, the album title refers to broken car windows (apparently), so the band is attempting to portray themselves as something they are not.
Mauvaise foi as my old philosophy lecturer would have said.
Click to expand...
They're definitely not from Hackney themselves are they? So I am not taking it totally literally. Album titles can mean all sorts. In conversation, I'm not sure Mick has ever tried to pass himself off as some kind of working class hero?

I'm more uncomfortable about the fact that they have probably shagged girls who weren't old enough to give consent, and won't ever be held accountable for it. Its harder to cancel the Rolling Stones than Rolf Harris though.

Whenever I raise this subject, everyone usually goes quiet....
 
Last edited:
Decent album.

Felt like classic Rolling Stones to me with modern production, some good guitar riffs, they sound very together, some good bluesy tracks. It must be most difficult for them lyrically these days, because they are removed from most people in society, but I thought they did an okay job of largely sticking to stuff relevant to them now.
 
atypical_boro said:
I'm more uncomfortable about the fact that they have probably shagged girls who weren't old enough to give consent, and won't ever be held accountable for it. Its harder to cancel the Rolling Stones than Rolf Harris though.
Click to expand...
There is a difference though. As far as I am aware the girls that were "probably" involved were not "groomed" as such but rather threw themselves at "pop stars" of course they were not old enough to give legal consent. The "pop stars" themselves were quite young (Jagger would only be 19 when the Stones first played a live gig). And of course it was, as they say, a "different time". Does that excuse it? Were the likes of the Stones guilty like Harris or Gadd? I don't know, it's a difficult subject. Shades of grey obscured in the mists of time.

I only found out something of that nature about a friend of mine who died some time ago, he was happily married for something like thirty plus years but had started "dating" his wife-to-be when she was 14 and he was 17.
 
Muttley said:
There is a difference though. As far as I am aware the girls that were "probably" involved were not "groomed" as such but rather threw themselves at "pop stars" of course they were not old enough to give legal consent. The "pop stars" themselves were quite young (Jagger would only be 19 when the Stones first played a live gig). And of course it was, as they say, a "different time". Does that excuse it? Were the likes of the Stones guilty like Harris or Gadd? I don't know, it's a difficult subject. Shades of grey obscured in the mists of time.

I only found out something of that nature about a friend of mine who died some time ago, he was happily married for something like thirty plus years but had started "dating" his wife-to-be when she was 14 and he was 17.
Click to expand...
I don't know how old Mick was when he had 'relations' with Lotti Mattix, but Jimmy Page was 28 when she was 13. Hard to understand how that could be anything other than 'grooming', I know what I'd do if a 13 year old threw herself at me.

"I don't know, it's a difficult subject. Shades of grey obscured in the mists of time." Well yes, but my personal opinion is that it comes down to hard society finds it to 'cancel' someone. It was very hard to cancel Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile when they were alive (despite some big efforts), so we waited til they'd been dead a year or two. Of course nobody wants to cancel David Bowie yet, he was so loved and still hasn't been dead very long, but it will probably happen eventually (maybe rightly so).

Lesser known stars have been 'cancelled' for much less than this, yet we give them passes because we want to see the blurred lines, like I used to with Jacko and I suppose like a lot of society did with Savile. I'm as guilty as anyone. Try and stop me from picking up my Telecaster and playing the intro riff to Brown Sugar!
 
atypical_boro said:
I don't know how old Mick was when he had 'relations' with Lotti Mattix, but Jimmy Page was 28 when she was 13. Hard to understand how that could be anything other than 'grooming', I know what I'd do if a 13 year old threw herself at me.

"I don't know, it's a difficult subject. Shades of grey obscured in the mists of time." Well yes, but my personal opinion is that it comes down to hard society finds it to 'cancel' someone. It was very hard to cancel Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile when they were alive (despite some big efforts), so we waited til they'd been dead a year or two. Of course nobody wants to cancel David Bowie yet, he was so loved and still hasn't been dead very long, but it will probably happen eventually (maybe rightly so).

Lesser known stars have been 'cancelled' for much less than this, yet we give them passes because we want to see the blurred lines, like I used to with Jacko and I suppose like a lot of society did with Savile. I'm as guilty as anyone. Try and stop me from picking up my Telecaster and playing the intro riff to Brown Sugar!
Click to expand...
I've read interviews with Lotti Mattix. It seems she had sexual relationships with Dave Bowie and Jimmy Page when she was 14 and 15 years old and she says she never felt exploited and in fact that was her lifestyle at the time. With Jagger, she claims she was 17. The Age of consent varies in the US from state to state and is between 16 and 18. In most European states she would be over the age of consent. It would be difficult to cancel Jagger (especially whilst he's still alive) when Bowie and Page were a couple of years ahead of him.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
she says she never felt exploited and in fact that was her lifestyle at the time
Click to expand...
Yeah tbh I wasn't specifically talking about Mattix re Mick, but I think its well documented that Mick, like the rest of those guys, possibly if not probably committed an act or two that weren't within the boundaries of the law, and if so, yes it is definitely grooming/rape whether or not she 'felt' exploited or not. Its just interesting that we take a case like Adam Johnson and condemn him, fans sing songs about him 'noncing' etc, when he did exactly the same thing. Her parents may have acted differently to Mattix's on finding out, and pursued it legally, but the crime itself was exactly the same, just a couple of generations apart.
 
The missus is watching a movie while ironing. I am in the same room listening to this album on repeat on my ear buds. The whole album is great. The song with Lady Gaga is magnificent.
 
Giving it a first spin currently. The production is quite "poppy" isn't it? I think their best work is at the dirtier end of the spectrum although appreciate modern production methods don't really do them any favours in this regard.

That said, Jagger's voice is sounding very good and the song writing is decent.
 
changingman said:
Giving it a first spin currently. The production is quite "poppy" isn't it? I think their best work is at the dirtier end of the spectrum although appreciate modern production methods don't really do them any favours in this regard.

That said, Jagger's voice is sounding very good and the song writing is decent.
Click to expand...
Have you got to Sweet Sounds Of Heaven yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top