Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Do talk back
User avatar
Foxhound
Posts: 2415
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
Location: By the back fence near the tracks.

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Foxhound » 07 May 2014, 15:31

Here's a more comprehensive post I made on this subject on May 5th on a more genteel/better mannered forum:


To say that the Rolling Stones weren't the Sex Pistols misses the point by miles and means that you just don't get it. The Sex Pistols in 1977 were trying to be what the Rolling Stones were fifteen years earlier. But society had changed so much that the Sex Pistols had to try much harder to be shocking than the Stones did fifteen years earlier. Are you not aware that a revolutionary change took place in culture between 1964 and 1969? In fact, there was more change in western mores and culture in that five year period than has occurred in the 45 years since 1969.

Under young huckster Andrew Loog Oldham's shrewd management, the Rolling Stones set out to be the counterpoint to the cute, polite Beatles and other early British Invasion "boy" bands, i.e. Dave Clark Five, Gerry & the Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer & the Dakotas, Freddie & the Dreamers, Peter & Gordon, Chad & Jeremy, etc. Check the Rolling Stones' LP covers from 1964-65. They were brooding and unsmiling. Big deal you say? Well it was a big deal in the context of the times! Just compare the photos on the Stones' LP covers to those of the Beatles, Dave Clark Five and Herman's Hermits in 1964-65.

And have you forgotten the remarks that Andrew Loog Oldham snuck into the liner notes on the back cover of Rolling Stones Now? "If you don't have the bread, see that blind man knock him on the head, steal his wallet and low and behold you have the loot, if you put in the boot, good, another one sold!" I suspect you've not forgotten, because you've never read these words in the first place probably because you don't even have the LP. Let me assure you though; those words were shocking to not just the older generation in 1964.

And are you aware of the U.K. newspaper headline from 1964 "Would you allow your daughter to marry a Rolling Stone?", which was probably just another clever marketing stunt on the part of Andrew Loog Oldham? And Brian Jones'(?) words after the Stones were busted for whizzing against a wall in 1964 "We piss anywhere, man!" Sure, it all seems pretty juvenile now, but the older generation regarded the Stones as the second coming of Attila the Hun at the time.

And then by late 1965 early 1966, the Stones were pictured sneering if not actually scowling on LP covers. Check out the LP covers to December's Children, High Tide and Green Grass and Got Live if You Want It! and contrast the photos to those on the covers of Beatles VI, Rubber Soul and Yesterday and Today. And of course their "scandalous" lyrics to Let's Spend the Night Together which ultra uptight Ed Sullivan didn't want on his show.

All this had an effect on the straights. Don't believe me? The Beatles were every bit as much into drug abuse as were the Stones in 1966-67, maybe even more (don't forget that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi nonsense). But the Beatles played for the Queen and had a non-threatening public image regardless of how wild they were behind closed doors. So which band was subject to the infamous repeated drug busts in 1967? It was the Stones, because they were the ones who had repeatedly thumbed their noses at the establishment.

So what then was the response of the Stones? The Their Satanic Majesties Request LP title! So what you say? Excuse me but Satanic references on LP covers were something entirely new and outrageous at the time. And do you not know that the LP title particularly tweaked the Brits because it parodied the words on a British passport "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests"? And then came the Sympathy for the Devil track in 1968.

Now DV has mentioned in another thread that referencing the Stones when compiling the Satanic influences in rock is just plain silly since hard core devil worshipping bands have been around for the last thirty years and anything the Stones have done is just the work of poseurs by comparison. But let me point out once again that the Stones were the first to cross this line and arouse the ire of both churches and polite society.

And then when physical abuse of women was the cause de jour in the seventies, the Stones mischievously put up this billboard sign in Los Angeles:

Image

That drew more outrage and out punked all the combined efforts of the punk bands in one fell swoop. And now I hear hard core feminists are outraged at the Stones' latest stunt, urinals modelled after their infamous tongue logo.

:lol:

But like I say, times have changed and you have to do differently if you want to scandalize the straights these days. And since the Stones are now part of the older generation themselves, it's the younger generation that they have to target these days. And that's easy enough to do by simply refusing to fade away gracefully into the sunset and let a new generation of rockers take over. That annoys the hell out of most kids these days. I've heard it myself from my younger sales assistants. "Why are those old guys playing the Super Bowl when Radiohead, Coldplay, Britney, Beyoncé (fill in the blank) are so much better and more relevant?"

So what else can the Stones do to outrage the younger generation these days? Well saying "Screw you" to a corporate sponsor wouldn't do it. They'd draw praise as opposed to opprobrium from Rolling Stone and Atlantic magazines and the bulk of the younger generation for taking a stand against corporatism. And that wouldn't do at all. What old Keith should do is say "Screw you man, I like my money!" and set his dogs on any petitioning Pink Floyd member who darkens his doorway. Now that would draw both the headlines and the assault charges that we long time Stones fans so love! And of course they'd sell tens of thousands more concert tickets. As they say "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

8-)


So participating in a boycott of Israel or any other jurisdiction would be completely out of character for the Stones, and anyone who would attempt to even broach the subject with them is at best brain dead.
Last edited by Foxhound on 18 Jan 2015, 00:11, edited 1 time in total.
Brits out of the Falklands!

Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.

Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.

User avatar
Belle Lettre
Éminence grise
Posts: 15917
Joined: 09 Oct 2008, 07:16
Location: Antiterra

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Belle Lettre » 07 May 2014, 19:53

*broach
Nikki Gradual wrote:
Get a fucking grip you narcissistic cretins.

User avatar
fire and fueryIre
Posts: 8750
Joined: 04 May 2011, 02:57
Location: Accredited BCB Pain in the Arse

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby fire and fueryIre » 07 May 2014, 20:06

Foxhound wrote:Here's a more comprehensive post I made on this subject on May 5th on a more genteel/better mannered forum:

[/color]




Truly we are not worthy to have a better class of poster like yourself stoop so low as to illuminate the dark littles corners
that have until now been our lives with such coruscating brilliance! Verily, the scales have surely been sloughed off from our eyes!

Let us all grovel before such unprecedented levels of pomposity!
Image

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 16166
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby bobzilla77 » 07 May 2014, 20:10

Brothers! Sisters! Who are we fighting and in what war? Who wants to fight? I don't want to fight! Why can't we just get a groove? Will somebody please go over there and sort that out?
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 47200
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Quaco » 07 May 2014, 20:38

Even though it'd be out of character for the Stones to take heed, Waters et al. may have thought it was worth making the point publicly anyway. That's really what it's about, using the Stones example as a way to raise the subject, not whether the Stones actually play some specific concert.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 16166
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby bobzilla77 » 07 May 2014, 20:48

It's true, Waters has been pressing for Israeli boycotts - and enduring cries of anti-Semitism - for years now. This is just a high-profile example for him to make to make his case again.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53433
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Snarfyguy » 07 May 2014, 20:55

fueryhk(redux) wrote:
Foxhound wrote:Here's a more comprehensive post I made on this subject on May 5th on a more genteel/better mannered forum:

[/color]




Truly we are not worthy to have a better class of poster like yourself stoop so low as to illuminate the dark littles corners
that have until now been our lives with such coruscating brilliance! Verily, the scales have surely been sloughed off from our eyes!

Let us all grovel before such unprecedented levels of pomposity!

Yeah, I never knew any of that stuff about The Rolling Stones. Too bad there are no books about them that we've all read so we could all already be familiar with the details of their story.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
never/ever
Posts: 24826
Joined: 27 Jun 2008, 14:21
Location: Journeying through a burning brain

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby never/ever » 07 May 2014, 21:26

bobzilla77 wrote:It's true, Waters has been pressing for Israeli boycotts - and enduring cries of anti-Semitism - for years now. This is just a high-profile example for him to make to make his case again.


During the Wall-tour he used the stories submitted by relatives of people dying in wars on the individual stones of the wall he created...it featured also the stories of Jewish victims of the horrors on WW2.
Waters seems very intent to highlight the suffering of war torn countries. H connecting it to collective pasts. It seems a bit one-sided not to see the Israeli/Palestinian-conflict from an equal open mind here, considering it is the practice of war he most definitely wants to combat.
kath wrote:i do not wanna buy the world a fucquin gotdamn coke.

User avatar
The Modernist
2018 BCB Cup Champ!
Posts: 13505
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby The Modernist » 07 May 2014, 23:16

Foxhound wrote:Here's a more comprehensive post I made on this subject on May 5th on a more genteel/better mannered forum:


To say that the Rolling Stones weren't the Sex Pistols misses the point by miles and means that you just don't get it. The Sex Pistols in 1977 were trying to be what the Rolling Stones were fifteen years earlier. But society had changed so much that the Sex Pistols had to try much harder to be shocking than the Stones did fifteen years earlier. Are you not aware that a revolutionary change took place in culture between 1964 and 1969? In fact, there was more change in western mores and culture in that five year period than has occurred in the 45 years since 1969.

Under young huckster Andrew Loog Oldham's shrewd management, the Rolling Stones set out to be the counterpoint to the cute, polite Beatles and other early British Invasion "boy" bands, i.e. Dave Clark Five, Gerry & the Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer & the Dakotas, Freddie & the Dreamers, Peter & Gordon, Chad & Jeremy, etc. Check the Rolling Stones' LP covers from 1964-65. They were brooding and unsmiling. Big deal you say? Well it was a big deal in the context of the times! Just compare the photos on the Stones' LP covers to those of the Beatles, Dave Clark Five and Herman's Hermits in 1964-65.

And have you forgotten the remarks that Andrew Loog Oldham snuck into the liner notes on the back cover of Rolling Stones Now? "If you don't have the bread, see that blind man knock him on the head, steal his wallet and low and behold you have the loot, if you put in the boot, good, another one sold!" I suspect you've not forgotten, because you've never read these words in the first place probably because you don't even have the LP. Let me assure you though; those words were shocking to not just the older generation in 1964.

And are you aware of the U.K. newspaper headline from 1964 "Would you allow your daughter to marry a Rolling Stone?", which was probably just another clever marketing stunt on the part of Andrew Loog Oldham? And Brian Jones'(?) words after the Stones were busted for whizzing against a wall in 1964 "We piss anywhere, man!" Sure, it all seems pretty juvenile now, but the older generation regarded the Stones as the second coming of Attila the Hun at the time.

And then by late 1965 early 1966, the Stones were pictured sneering if not actually scowling on LP covers. Check out the LP covers to December's Children, High Tide and Green Grass and Got Live if You Want It! and contrast the photos to those on the covers of Beatles VI, Rubber Soul and Yesterday and Today. And of course their "scandalous" lyrics to Let's Spend the Night Together which ultra uptight Ed Sullivan didn't want on his show.

All this had an effect on the straights. Don't believe me? The Beatles were every bit as much into drug abuse as were the Stones in 1966-67, maybe even more (don't forget that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi nonsense). But the Beatles played for the Queen and had a non-threatening public image regardless of how wild they were behind closed doors. So which band was subject to the infamous repeated drug busts in 1967? It was the Stones, because they were the ones who had repeatedly thumbed their noses at the establishment.

So what then was the response of the Stones? The Their Satanic Majesties Request LP title! So what you say? Excuse me but Satanic references on LP covers were something entirely new and outrageous at the time. And do you not know that the LP title particularly tweaked the Brits because it parodied the words on a British passport "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests"? And then came the Sympathy for the Devil track in 1968.

Now DV has mentioned in another thread that referencing the Stones when compiling the Satanic influences in rock is just plain silly since hard core devil worshipping bands have been around for the last thirty years and anything the Stones have done is just the work of poseurs by comparison. But let me point out once again that the Stones were the first to cross this line and arouse the ire of both churches and polite society.

And then when physical abuse of women was the cause de jour in the seventies, the Stones mischievously put up this billboard sign in Los Angeles:

Image

That drew more outrage and out punked all the combined efforts of the punk bands in one fell swoop. And now I hear hard core feminists are outraged at the Stones' latest stunt, urinals modelled after their infamous tongue logo.

:lol:

But like I say, times have changed and you have to do differently if you want to scandalize the straights these days. And since the Stones are now part of the older generation themselves, it's the younger generation that they have to target these days. And that's easy enough to do by simply refusing to fade away gracefully into the sunset and let a new generation of rockers take over. That annoys the hell out of most kids these days. I've heard it myself from my younger sales assistants. "Why are those old guys playing the Super Bowl when Radiohead, Coldplay, Britney, Beyoncé (fill in the blank) are so much better and more relevant?"

So what else can the Stones do to outrage the younger generation these days? Well saying "Screw you" to a corporate sponsor wouldn't do it. They'd draw praise as opposed to opprobrium from Rolling Stone and Atlantic magazines and the bulk of the younger generation for taking a stand against corporatism. And that wouldn't do at all. What old Keith should do is say "Screw you man, I like my money!" and set his dogs on any petitioning Pink Floyd member who darkens his doorway. Now that would draw both the headlines and the assault charges that we long time Stones fans so love! And of course they'd sell tens of thousands more concert tickets. As they say "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

8-)


So participating in a boycott of Israel or any other jurisdiction would be completely out of character for the Stones, and anyone who would attempt to even breach the subject with them is at best brain dead.


Thanks for your illuminating post on an obscure part of musical history. Without it BCB would be completely unaware that there were social changes in the 1960s and The Stones were regarded as naughty boys. Your research is incredible, it's almost like you've read a book on The Rolling Stones!

User avatar
Phenomenal Cat
death on four legs
Posts: 10339
Joined: 07 Sep 2004, 16:52
Location: Presently Shattering the Illusion of Integrity
Contact:

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Phenomenal Cat » 07 May 2014, 23:39

That'll show them "straights".
But somehow when you smile, I can brave bad weather.

User avatar
Foxhound
Posts: 2415
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
Location: By the back fence near the tracks.

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Foxhound » 07 May 2014, 23:51

Ahhhh, learned criticism from the can't string two sentences together brigade. I hate to be rude fellows but your envy is showing. That's alright though. I get a lot of that.

:P

Sorry to be so wordy though. Would you settle for a heart felt "Piss of and die" in future?

:?:
Brits out of the Falklands!

Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.

Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 08 May 2014, 00:05

Maybe a heartfelt "piss off and die"?

User avatar
Foxhound
Posts: 2415
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
Location: By the back fence near the tracks.

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Foxhound » 08 May 2014, 00:10

The G Experience! wrote:Good for Pink Floyd.


I'm trying to decide which is more pathetic here. The doddering old fools petitioning the Stones to act contrary to their own self-interest, or the brainless contingent cheering said doddering old fools on from the sidelines. Hmmmm. Tough call. Let's call it a tie.

:roll:
Last edited by Foxhound on 08 May 2014, 00:27, edited 1 time in total.
Brits out of the Falklands!

Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.

Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.

User avatar
Foxhound
Posts: 2415
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
Location: By the back fence near the tracks.

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Foxhound » 08 May 2014, 00:12

CHUNK-O wrote:Maybe a heartfelt "piss off and die"?


Have it your way then.

:roll:
Brits out of the Falklands!

Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.

Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.

User avatar
fire and fueryIre
Posts: 8750
Joined: 04 May 2011, 02:57
Location: Accredited BCB Pain in the Arse

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby fire and fueryIre » 08 May 2014, 07:15

The G Experience! wrote:
Foxhound wrote:Here's a more comprehensive post I made on this subject on May 5th on a more genteel/better mannered forum:


To say that the Rolling Stones weren't the Sex Pistols misses the point by miles and means that you just don't get it. The Sex Pistols in 1977 were trying to be what the Rolling Stones were fifteen years earlier. But society had changed so much that the Sex Pistols had to try much harder to be shocking than the Stones did fifteen years earlier. Are you not aware that a revolutionary change took place in culture between 1964 and 1969? In fact, there was more change in western mores and culture in that five year period than has occurred in the 45 years since 1969.

Under young huckster Andrew Loog Oldham's shrewd management, the Rolling Stones set out to be the counterpoint to the cute, polite Beatles and other early British Invasion "boy" bands, i.e. Dave Clark Five, Gerry & the Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer & the Dakotas, Freddie & the Dreamers, Peter & Gordon, Chad & Jeremy, etc. Check the Rolling Stones' LP covers from 1964-65. They were brooding and unsmiling. Big deal you say? Well it was a big deal in the context of the times! Just compare the photos on the Stones' LP covers to those of the Beatles, Dave Clark Five and Herman's Hermits in 1964-65.

And have you forgotten the remarks that Andrew Loog Oldham snuck into the liner notes on the back cover of Rolling Stones Now? "If you don't have the bread, see that blind man knock him on the head, steal his wallet and low and behold you have the loot, if you put in the boot, good, another one sold!" I suspect you've not forgotten, because you've never read these words in the first place probably because you don't even have the LP. Let me assure you though; those words were shocking to not just the older generation in 1964.

And are you aware of the U.K. newspaper headline from 1964 "Would you allow your daughter to marry a Rolling Stone?", which was probably just another clever marketing stunt on the part of Andrew Loog Oldham? And Brian Jones'(?) words after the Stones were busted for whizzing against a wall in 1964 "We piss anywhere, man!" Sure, it all seems pretty juvenile now, but the older generation regarded the Stones as the second coming of Attila the Hun at the time.

And then by late 1965 early 1966, the Stones were pictured sneering if not actually scowling on LP covers. Check out the LP covers to December's Children, High Tide and Green Grass and Got Live if You Want It! and contrast the photos to those on the covers of Beatles VI, Rubber Soul and Yesterday and Today. And of course their "scandalous" lyrics to Let's Spend the Night Together which ultra uptight Ed Sullivan didn't want on his show.

All this had an effect on the straights. Don't believe me? The Beatles were every bit as much into drug abuse as were the Stones in 1966-67, maybe even more (don't forget that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi nonsense). But the Beatles played for the Queen and had a non-threatening public image regardless of how wild they were behind closed doors. So which band was subject to the infamous repeated drug busts in 1967? It was the Stones, because they were the ones who had repeatedly thumbed their noses at the establishment.

So what then was the response of the Stones? The Their Satanic Majesties Request LP title! So what you say? Excuse me but Satanic references on LP covers were something entirely new and outrageous at the time. And do you not know that the LP title particularly tweaked the Brits because it parodied the words on a British passport "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests"? And then came the Sympathy for the Devil track in 1968.

Now DV has mentioned in another thread that referencing the Stones when compiling the Satanic influences in rock is just plain silly since hard core devil worshipping bands have been around for the last thirty years and anything the Stones have done is just the work of poseurs by comparison. But let me point out once again that the Stones were the first to cross this line and arouse the ire of both churches and polite society.

And then when physical abuse of women was the cause de jour in the seventies, the Stones mischievously put up this billboard sign in Los Angeles:

Image

That drew more outrage and out punked all the combined efforts of the punk bands in one fell swoop. And now I hear hard core feminists are outraged at the Stones' latest stunt, urinals modelled after their infamous tongue logo.

:lol:

But like I say, times have changed and you have to do differently if you want to scandalize the straights these days. And since the Stones are now part of the older generation themselves, it's the younger generation that they have to target these days. And that's easy enough to do by simply refusing to fade away gracefully into the sunset and let a new generation of rockers take over. That annoys the hell out of most kids these days. I've heard it myself from my younger sales assistants. "Why are those old guys playing the Super Bowl when Radiohead, Coldplay, Britney, Beyoncé (fill in the blank) are so much better and more relevant?"

So what else can the Stones do to outrage the younger generation these days? Well saying "Screw you" to a corporate sponsor wouldn't do it. They'd draw praise as opposed to opprobrium from Rolling Stone and Atlantic magazines and the bulk of the younger generation for taking a stand against corporatism. And that wouldn't do at all. What old Keith should do is say "Screw you man, I like my money!" and set his dogs on any petitioning Pink Floyd member who darkens his doorway. Now that would draw both the headlines and the assault charges that we long time Stones fans so love! And of course they'd sell tens of thousands more concert tickets. As they say "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

8-)


So participating in a boycott of Israel or any other jurisdiction would be completely out of character for the Stones, and anyone who would attempt to even breach the subject with them is at best brain dead.


Thanks for your illuminating post on an obscure part of musical history. Without it BCB would be completely unaware that there were social changes in the 1960s and The Stones were regarded as naughty boys. Your research is incredible, it's almost like you've read a book on The Rolling Stones!



As G and Snarfy point out, would seem as though Foxhound has indeed dismissively flicked through some kind of book on the Rolling Stones (The Big Mick'n'Keef Picture Book for 5-Year Olds and Under would be my guess).

Sadly, the poster's incorrect use of heart felt (sic) shows that (s)he has either not yet read or was unable to obtain a copy of Stringing Two Words Together for Dummies, a title that rarely stays in the younger readers' section of the library for very long!.

While a valiant attempt, his use of "Piss off and die" as a kind of put down also shows (s)he is still some distance away from the W shelves where the title Witty Ripostes 101 is housed
Last edited by fire and fueryIre on 08 May 2014, 10:01, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 08 May 2014, 09:51

He's a bit dim, then?

User avatar
fire and fueryIre
Posts: 8750
Joined: 04 May 2011, 02:57
Location: Accredited BCB Pain in the Arse

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby fire and fueryIre » 08 May 2014, 10:00

CHUNK-O wrote:He's a bit dim, then?



Yes, sadly not the most in-tune "axe" In Keef's collection.
Image

User avatar
Foxhound
Posts: 2415
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
Location: By the back fence near the tracks.

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Foxhound » 08 May 2014, 16:50

Excuse me but I'm not the one taking some rock musician's political "insights" seriously. That takes stupidity to a new low in my book. The operative adage here is still "Shut up and play son. I'm not paying for your opinions."
Brits out of the Falklands!

Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.

Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.

User avatar
The Modernist
2018 BCB Cup Champ!
Posts: 13505
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby The Modernist » 08 May 2014, 17:21

Eh?
No one's claiming Roger Waters has great political insight. I happen to agree with his stance on Israel that's all. I'm not even a Pink Floyd fan, quite the opposite!

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 23767
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: In a beautiful place out in the country

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israe

Postby Deebank » 08 May 2014, 18:07

I think Waters is pretty politically astute - his mum was a good socialist after all.

Never agreed with his stance on fox hunting though.
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro