[aberdeenwriter]

What was Mick trying to sing, anyway???

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ory?id=1591100

Rolling Stones Decry Super Bowl Censorship
Rolling Stones Say Super Bowl Censorship Was 'Absolutely Ridiculous'


Mick Jagger performs with the Rolling Stones during the halftime show at the Super Bowl XL football game Sunday, Feb. 5, 2006, in Detroit. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)


By DAVID BAUDER AP Entertainment Writer

NEW YORK Feb 7, 2006 (AP)— Nobody turns off the microphone on Mick Jagger without a fight. Censorship of their songs during the Super Bowl halftime show was "absolutely ridiculous and completely unnecessary," the Rolling Stones said through a spokeswoman on Tuesday.

The NFL, which produced the show seen on ABC Sunday night, silenced Jagger's microphone during sexually suggestive passages of two of the three songs the band performed before an audience of 90 million television viewers.

The football league, still nervous over the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction two years ago at the Super Bowl, has said it wanted to ensure family entertainment at the game.

"The band was aware of our plan to simply lower Mick's mike at the appropriate moments," said Brian McCarthy, NFL spokesman. "It was discussed with the group last week prior to the Super Bowl."

He declined further comment on the Stones' statement.

[analogika]

They hire the Stones and are surprised that some of their greatest hits contain lewd lyrics, as they have for over forty years.

Right.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by analogika

They hire the Stones and are surprised that some of their greatest hits contain lewd lyrics, as they have for over forty years.

Right.

"Let's Spend Some Time Together" does kinda work, doesn't it?

[Powerbook]

"The incident was reminiscent of the band's performance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" during the 1960s, when the host demanded the Stones change the lyrics to "Let's Spend the Night Together." As ordered, Jagger sang "let's spend some time together," but he rolled his eyes for effect."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Musi....ap/index.html


Fuking hell. Welcome to the bigotry, hokeyness and self-censorship of the sixties. Forty years of great progress, America!


PB.

[analogika]

Oh, c'mon - people have been having a massive McCarthy-era flashback for over four years now.

[Weyland-Yutani]

I loughed out loud when Mick said something on the lines of "here's one that could have been played at Superbowl 1"

On topic: there is nothing remotely offensive that can come out of the mouth of Jagger compared to what we hear on the public radio any time during the day. Stupid censoring.

cheers

W-Y

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika

They hire the Stones and are surprised that some of their greatest hits contain lewd lyrics, as they have for over forty years.

Right.

Who said they were surprised? Sounds like they were expecting it to me.

[Jawbone54]

I'm just glad I didnt' see his wrinkled nipple.

[- - e r i k - -]

Only in America™. Or perhaps in Iran too.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by analogika

Oh, c'mon - people have been having a massive McCarthy-era flashback for over four years now.

Did you say, the McCarthy era???

"The band was aware of our plan to simply lower Mick's mike at the appropriate moments," said Brian McCarthy, NFL spokesman. "It was discussed with the group last week prior to the Super Bowl."

It's baaaaaack!

[JoshuaZ]

I still don't see whats wrong with the lyrics. If a song's lyrics are good enough to be played on the radio for over 30 years, then they should be just fine for live TV.

People in the US should wake up and realize that censoring is bad, and that the vast majority of complaints to the FCC are done by a very small group of well organized people.

Point and case. Complains to the FCC have ballooned in the last couple of years, to hundreds of thousands of complaints. Then again, these guys accounted for 99% of all FCC complaints in 2004. Read their webpage, no one is safe.

http://www.parentstv.org/

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Oh, c'mon - people have been having a massive McCarthy-era flashback for over four years now.

Wonder How Candice feels about this.

Is there a Mortimer-era too?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

a girl at work had the same belt as him

[ghporter]

I think it was completely stupid for them to mute Mick's microphone (try saying that three times fast!) for THOSE particular lyrics. "Start Me Up" plays on mainstream radio all the time and nobody gets offended; most people don't even quite catch the lyrics the NFL censored.

I also think it shows a lack of maturity (both emotional and experiential) on the part of the NFL folks that decided some lyrics from one of the most legendary rock bands in the universe were "inappropriate," yet the rest of those songs were ok. Why not just say "we'd like to not get our butts fined clean off by the FCC, so can you line up songs that won't get us in trouble?" The Stones are businessmen too; they'd get it.

[Doofy]

They should have censored the whole performance. I mean, after 700 years in the business you'd have thought they'd have been able to acquire something approaching a reasonable guitar sound (and by reasonable I mean "one that doesn't make me reach for the TV mute").

[Jawbone54]

Not everybody wants to hear something they might deem as "inappropriate," especially during the Super Bowl halftime show. It's not about being offended. It's about the fact that millions of people are watching the Super Bowl, including young children. That's why the Janet Jackson ordeal was so blown out of proportion. Kids saw her breast. You might be fine with your children being exposed to nudity or obsene language during a football game, but I'm not. My nephew just turned 5, and he's extremely impressionable. If he happened to catch the Super Bowl halftime show and watched the Stones' performance, he'd likely start thrusting his hips everywhere and he would DEFINITELY hear and repeat the worst words.

By the way, was anyone disgusted by watching an emaciated man the age of my grandpa thrusting his crotch everywhere?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Not everybody wants to hear something they might deem as "inappropriate," especially during the Super Bowl halftime show. It's not about being offended. It's about the fact that millions of people are watching the Super Bowl, including young children. That's why the Janet Jackson ordeal was so blown out of proportion. Kids saw her breast. You might be fine with your children being exposed to nudity or obsene language during a football game, but I'm not. My nephew just turned 5, and he's extremely impressionable. If he happened to catch the Super Bowl halftime show and watched the Stones' performance, he'd likely start thrusting his hips everywhere and he would DEFINITELY hear and repeat the worst words.

By the way, was anyone disgusted by watching an emaciated man the age of my grandpa thrusting his crotch everywhere?

How old is your TV? Just wondering because most recent(last 20-30 or so years) have the options of muting and turning the TV off at the push of a button. I use it frequently and it works wonders for preventing me seeing things I don't like (commercials and bad shows)

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

That's why the Janet Jackson ordeal was so blown out of proportion.

Correct - it was blown out of proportion.

Kids saw her breast. You might be fine with your children being exposed to nudity or obsene language during a football game, but I'm not.

Trust me, children these days are exposed to it EVERY DAY be it in school, from friends, etc. It's not the end of the world...

[nredman]

mick's flabby arms were more disturbing then janet's nipple

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by nredman

mick's flabby arms were more disturbing then janet's nipple

Agreed - I found that offensive.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Not everybody wants to hear something they might deem as "inappropriate," especially during the Super Bowl halftime show. It's not about being offended. It's about the fact that millions of people are watching the Super Bowl, including young children. That's why the Janet Jackson ordeal was so blown out of proportion. Kids saw her breast. You might be fine with your children being exposed to nudity or obsene language during a football game, but I'm not. My nephew just turned 5, and he's extremely impressionable. If he happened to catch the Super Bowl halftime show and watched the Stones' performance, he'd likely start thrusting his hips everywhere and he would DEFINITELY hear and repeat the worst words.

By the way, was anyone disgusted by watching an emaciated man the age of my grandpa thrusting his crotch everywhere?

Your son could have heard the same words if he was sitting in the car with you while listening to the radio (and without warning, no less). This isn't anything like the Janet Jackson incident. As von Wrangell pointed out, if you as a parent know that the Rolling Stones are coming up and you know that their style of music isn't something that you want to expose your kid to, then you can mute or turn off the TV for a bit or tell your son to leave the room.

Anyway, there was more sexuality in many of the SuperBowl commercials than there was in the Stones' performance (GoDaddy.com anyone?). If the NFL wanted to guarantee that the Superbowl would be a "family-friendly" show, then they should have extended it to all aspects of the program, including the commercials. Otherwise, censoring the Halftime Show in the manner that they did is just hypocritical.

I fully agree with your second point, however.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Your son could have heard the same words if he was sitting in the car with you while listening to the radio (and without warning, no less). This isn't anything like the Janet Jackson incident. As von Wrangell pointed out, if you as a parent know that the Rolling Stones are coming up and you know that their style of music isn't something that you want to expose your kid to, then you can mute or turn off the TV for a bit or tell your son to leave the room.

Anyway, there was more sexuality in many of the SuperBowl commercials than there was in the Stones' performance (GoDaddy.com anyone?). If the NFL wanted to guarantee that the Superbowl would be a "family-friendly" show, then they should have extended it to all aspects of the program, including the commercials. Otherwise, censoring the Halftime Show in the manner that they did is just hypocritical.

I fully agree with your second point, however.

Well, I'm a even more conservative than that. I don't listen to music myself that has anything obscene in it. I understand that I'm not going to be able to protect my children from everything, but there are some programs that I shouldn't have to worry about. The Super Bowl would definitely be one of them. Since when did professional football become adult entertainment. Sports (sans professionally wrestling) have never been anything that I could not watch with my entire family. I'd definitely agree with you on the commercials.

I'm no so much griping about the "indecency" of the halftime show and commercials as I am lamenting the fact that it's a progressive problem. 20 years from now, I'm sure nudity will be freely allowed on national television. I can only speak for myself, but I am never going to have time to monitor my future children 24 hours a day. Whether it be easily accessible porn on the internet, nudity on television, language in most pop music, or sexuality in advertising, it feels like conservative Christian America is being pushed aside. I feel that I'm part of a demographic that is being ridiculed and disdained. I also believe that Hollywood's recent decline in profits over the past several years is indicative of much of America being turned off. Additionally, I think it should be noted that it's a much better way of protesting than rioting in the streets and burning down embassies.

Gotta love the 50-year-old moshers in the "tongue" area in front of Jagger though. Pot-bellied groupies!

[Jawbone54]

additional note: If the Stones were cool with being censored (as they reportedly were), then everyone else should probably be. I personally didn't mind them playing, although as mentioned before...it was gross. But that's probably the only thing that made it entertaining to me. I wasn't head-banging, that's for sure. More like rolling on the floor (no pun intendined), laughing at Jagger's little chicken legs.

My issue, which should've been clarified, is that I think the NFL did the safe thing in censoring some of the words. At least they didn't make Jagger change them.

[smacintush]

Will someone please explain to me why it is so goddamned terrible to see a boob or hear a "suggestive" line sung by an old wrinkled up codger?

I think the bigger issue is how an american tradition like the Super Bowl repeatedly is tainted by such PATHETIC AND LAME ASS HALF-TIME SHOWS! WTF is wrong with the people who arrange these things?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Will someone please explain to me why it is so *BEEEEEP* terrible to see a *BEEEEEP* or hear a "suggestive" line sung by an old wrinkled up codger?

I think the bigger issue is how an american tradition like the Super Bowl repeatedly is tainted by such PATHETIC AND LAME *BEEEEEEEP* HALF-TIME SHOWS! WT*BEEEEEP* is wrong with the people who arrange these things?

You've been censored.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Will someone please explain to me why it is so goddamned terrible to see a boob or hear a "suggestive" line sung by an old wrinkled up codger?

It's called sexual repression. Anything overtly sexual is considered "obscene" by some people. Groups like parentstv.org, instead of changing the channel, muting the TV, or reading books with their children do not want ANYONE to be able to see or hear certain things on TV/radio. Like someone else said, 99% of FCC complaints come from people who belong to this group. Instead of being responsible for their own children, they want the government to do it for them as well as for everyone else.

[andi*pandi]

now, it's been a while since I've heard those stones songs, didn't watch the superbowl... but was there anything bleeped or faded that wouldn't have been shown in a Friends episode? no f-bombs, etc? Or was it the "lets spend the night together" line a la Sullivan?

silly, really.

[Jawbone54]

If other people want to watch the stuff, that's fine. I don't believe it should be so easily accessible to anyone below the age of 13. I certainly believe that parents should be responsible for their children, but as I've already mentioned, no one has time to monitor their children 24/7. It's not possible.

[BlueSky]

During the coda of "Start Me Up," one of the band's most widely played hits, the vocals suddenly went silent as Jagger finished the risque line "You make a dead man . . .

...come over for a spot of tea"? I'm only vaguely familiar with the song.

" Another word, a sexually suggestive synonym for rooster, was omitted near the start of "Rough Justice," a newer single.

"One time you were my baby chicken
Now you've grown into a fox
Once upon a time I was your little rooster
But am I just one of your cocks"

That's just silly. The problem seems to be censors with dirty little minds.

edit: It sounds more like McDonald's Farm than anything else.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

That's just silly. The problem seems to be censors with dirty little minds.

Well it's understandable, I mean sex IS the worst evil the country…indeed the WORLD faces.

[ambush]

Allah Allah Allah... no sex on TV!

mohammed jihad!

[Jawbone54]

The "cocks" line being bleeped out is admittedly teetering on the edge of ridiculous

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I'm no so much griping about the "indecency" of the halftime show and commercials as I am lamenting the fact that it's a progressive problem. 20 years from now, I'm sure nudity will be freely allowed on national television.

That is exactly what your ilk said forty years ago, when the Rolling Stones became famous for doing *exactly* what they're doing today, except with more drugs, sex, and wanton debauchery.

They've gotten incredibly tame compared to what made them big.

The fact that people aren't having more sex, but that violence is steadily increasing, and that the latter actually kills people, while the former leads to happier people (provided proper education and access to prophylactics is secured), leads me to believe that your efforts would better-spent on more sensible priorities.

[Rolling Bones]

Glad to see they left their walkers on the bus.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Not everybody wants to hear something they might deem as "inappropriate," especially during the Super Bowl halftime show. It's not about being offended. It's about the fact that millions of people are watching the Super Bowl, including young children. That's why the Janet Jackson ordeal was so blown out of proportion. Kids saw her breast. You might be fine with your children being exposed to nudity or obsene language during a football game, but I'm not. My nephew just turned 5, and he's extremely impressionable. If he happened to catch the Super Bowl halftime show and watched the Stones' performance, he'd likely start thrusting his hips everywhere and he would DEFINITELY hear and repeat the worst words.

By the way, was anyone disgusted by watching an emaciated man the age of my grandpa thrusting his crotch everywhere?

OMG! There's a child present in that photo! Call the FCC!

[ghporter]

Censoring out "cock" from "Rough Justice" was not teetering on the edge; it was all the way down into the pit of lunacy. Dirty minds were responsible, not risqué lyrics.

According to this story, the Stones were not thrilled with the way the censorship was handled. I can't blame them. It's my impression that the agreement was to "tone down" Mick's lead audio at certain lyrics, but instead they muted him. The effect was to accentuate the supposedly problematic lyrics, not reduce their impact.

Aberdeen, you'd be surprised at how many people get really upset when a mother nurses her child in public, even with a blanket covering everything but the kid's toes. Another dumb thing that our society does that shows how extremely hypocritical we as a group are.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Aberdeen, you'd be surprised at how many people get really upset when a mother nurses her child in public, even with a blanket covering everything but the kid's toes. Another dumb thing that our society does that shows how extremely hypocritical we as a group are.

I love the fact that nobody gives a damn when people eat or drink in public in this country, and that includes babies.

[nredman]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

OMG! There's a child present in that photo! Call the FCC!

i think the mother is smiling alittle too much


in before the lock

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by analogika

That is exactly what your ilk said forty years ago, when the Rolling Stones became famous for doing *exactly* what they're doing today, except with more drugs, sex, and wanton debauchery.

They've gotten incredibly tame compared to what made them big.

The fact that people aren't having more sex, but that violence is steadily increasing, and that the latter actually kills people, while the former leads to happier people (provided proper education and access to prophylactics is secured), leads me to believe that your efforts would better-spent on more sensible priorities.

Socially concerned critics of R&R's dirty, suggestive lyrics finally achieved the victory they've wanted since 1964 at the 2006 NFL SUPER BOWL XL, where they were able to legally, if not definitively, censor the bad boys of rock and roll, the geriatric Rolling Stones.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by analogika

I love the fact that nobody gives a damn when people eat or drink in public in this country, and that includes babies.

And while we're at it, please ponder why it's alright to blow our noses (and after the blow, to probe the ol' proboscis) in public?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wonder How Candice feels about this.

Is there a Mortimer-era too?

Awesome!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

And while we're at it, please ponder why it's alright to blow our noses (and after the blow, to probe the ol' proboscis) in public?

Not in Japan.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Powerbook

"The incident was reminiscent of the band's performance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" during the 1960s, when the host demanded the Stones change the lyrics to "Let's Spend the Night Together." As ordered, Jagger sang "let's spend some time together," but he rolled his eyes for effect."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Musi....ap/index.html


Fuking hell. Welcome to the bigotry, hokeyness and self-censorship of the sixties. Forty years of great progress, America!


PB.

Yeah.

And rolling eyes is sooo rude!

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Aberdeen, you'd be surprised at how many people get really upset when a mother nurses her child in public, even with a blanket covering everything but the kid's toes. Another dumb thing that our society does that shows how extremely hypocritical we as a group are.

Actually, that's just another example of how sexually repressed a certain vocal yet minor section in our society is. The people in these groups (e.g. parentstv.org) are afraid of seeing a woman's breast is it is not their own wife's. I'm not even sure they want to see their own spouse's breasts. I mean, it is obscene after all.

[ambush]

even patriots should agree there was something wrong with this.

since when is a breast obscene????

[andi*pandi]

since Ashcroft draped the Spirit of Justice statue.

[Face Ache]

The five o'clock news in Oz showed the Jackson nipple clip (uncensored) on Monday during a story about your wacky US censorship.

Nobody was corrupted.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by analogika

Not in Japan.

Sounds like my kind of town!

[JoshuaZ]

God, I saw topless women doing love hotel ads on late night Japanese TV. You know many children in many other places in the world see nipples and hear things, yet for some reason they have less issues with sex and violence then the US....

Hmmm....

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

God, I saw topless women doing love hotel ads on late night Japanese TV. You know many children in many other places in the world see nipples and hear things, yet for some reason they have less issues with sex and violence then the US....

Hmmm....

My point exactly. Sexual repression and puritinism is not a good thing.