Ben sent me the above cartoon from The Grauniad shortly after last week's post about the AI Armageddon. It says a lot about the dangers of online rabbit holes and the propensity in human nature to allow ourselves to be willingly sucked down them.
I've been reading a lot more books lately. When Sam was younger and I was still working in The Bad Place, my reading-for-pleasure had significantly reduced, to the point where I was only managing a page or two a night (if that) and averaging under ten books completed in a year. I've got a much healthier reading regime going at the moment, at least two a month, more if they're shorter. I've taken to listing my latest reads on Goodreads... but then I find myself needing to add a review... and well, it's a slippery slope, isn't it?
You may recall that last week's anti-AI rant was spurred by a training session at work... one in which I felt rather like Chief Brody on the beach in Jaws, telling people to get out of the water on July 4th, while everyone told me it was fine and I should come in for a swim. Afterwards, we were given the task of going away and experimenting with AI to see how it could help us at work. That evening, I also received the traditional training feedback survey. So I asked AI to "write a response to this question: "What did you find most useful?" based on a presentation about the use of AI in education". As a result, I was able to submit the following reply...
What I found most useful was the clear explanation of how AI can genuinely enhance learning rather than replace it. The presentation highlighted practical examples—like personalised learning pathways, instant feedback tools, and automated administrative tasks—that showed how AI can save time for educators while giving students more tailored support.
I also found it especially valuable to see real classroom applications rather than just theoretical ideas. Understanding how AI can help differentiate instruction, identify learning gaps early, and support students with varying needs made the potential impact much more concrete.
Overall, the session made the benefits of AI in education feel both accessible and realistic, and it gave me a clearer picture of how these tools can be responsibly and effectively integrated into everyday teaching.
I admitted that the response was AI-generated, and hoped I'd made my point. There's a huge Great White Shark out there and I'd rather not be floating around on a lilo, thank you very much.
Khayem also replied to last week's post about the threat of Artificial Intelligence changing our lives forever.
...the rate that it’s sweeping through my workplace as a default tool is scary. I can see the attraction: regularly working overtime (unpaid) with an impossibly long to do list, AI prepping a document or report for you in seconds gives you back an hour or so to stress about the other stuff you haven’t done.
I’ve not gone done that route, but I also know that some tasks do take longer than they should because I’m tired/over loaded. However, I like my brain and I want to keep exercising it.
Having just done a round of recruitment for a fairly senior position, it was depressing at the shortlisting stage to see how many personal statements were clearly AI generated.
I admire your fortitude in standing up for the Resistance, K. The recruitment thing is telling though - I've also heard that AI is regularly being used to sift through and shortlist applications in many jobs, so even if you do go to the effort of sculpting your own CV, chances are it might be rejected by the machine for not sounding enough like a machine. According to a recent feature on BBC News...
...AI screening looks for certain keywords in an applicant's CV. As a result, the bigger picture, which might reveal whether the applicant is actually a good fit is lost.
Surely if you want to give somebody a job, you want to meet them and talk to them first? In my current role, I know for a fact that when I reached the interview stage, I was up against people with far better qualifications on paper... but in the interview itself, I was able to come out on top. Now though (according to that same article on the Beeb), some companies are even using AI for telephone and online interviews... with only a select few making it through to sitting in front of an actual human being.
We might not be able to blame employers for this though, since a tough job market and artificial assistance have increased the number of applications many jobs receive, tenfold.
There are bots that can apply to 1,000 jobs on your behalf while you sleep, tailoring your CV for each of them. This means that the fewer jobs that are on the market are getting more applicants than ever, not just because there are more candidates, but because these candidates are applying to more roles than ever.
This just creates a really dire state where the only way that recruiters and companies can possibly sift through these is by using AI to filter them, so a lot of people are just getting automatically rejected or ghosted from roles. That is less to do with their actual skills, because no human has seen their CV.
Where does this all end? I figured I might ask our AI Overlords...
It can feel like you’re shouting into a void when an algorithm is the one "reading" your life’s work. In 2026, AI screening has moved beyond simple word matching; it now looks for context, depth, and human authenticity. If you feel like you're being "rejected by the bot," it's likely due to one of three things: formatting that confuses the scanner, a lack of specific "signal" words, or—ironically—sounding too much like an AI yourself.
So will AI start rejecting AI-written applications in favour of ones written by actual human beings? Maybe... if you use the correct "signal" words. Whatever they might be.
Ironically, this tallies with something another teacher told me last week about the latest bout of AI-written essays being handed in to schools across the country. After getting the AI to do their homework for them, the smarter students then add one further level of modification...
Welcome back to the Cancel Culture Club, where a distinguished committee of leading lights from the blogosphere (and me) debate old songs with attitudes that now seem rather suspect to modern ears.
Is this week's offering our most contentious contender yet?
I think I'll let Alyson from the Jukebox Time Machine do the introductions, as she's much better at it than I am. Alyson... What's It All About?
Sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. A phrase we’ve all heard of which could almost have been coined for the Rolling Stones. I’m just about old enough to remember both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones from the mid-1960s, when we saw them on telly in black and white. I think I fell a little in love with baby-faced Paul McCartney, but I was always a bit unsure about the Rolling Stones as they exuded something I couldn’t possibly have understood back then. As I got (a lot) older, I realised most of their lyrics referenced sex, drugs or both which brings us on to their song Brown Sugar from 1971, the song up for debate this time.
It seems Mick Jagger wrote the lyrics to Brown Sugar whilst he was in Australia filming Ned Kelly and then in the Muscle Shoals recording studio in Alabama. Mick himself admits the song was a bit of a mishmash, with everything he was thinking of at the time thrown in. He also said he wouldn’t write those lyrics nowadays and the band no longer play the song in concert. But why?
Well, I for one, believe him when he said he was writing about what he was thinking of at the time. It is no secret that the band were habitual users of heroin back in 1971, the drug also known as Brown Sugar. He probably thought it could be a great title for a rock song whilst at the same time getting it past the censors. At this time in Australia, he was probably also missing his girlfriend of the time, Claudia Linnear, who was a very striking backing singer with Ike and Tina Turner. As a young man on the other side of the world, he was no doubt reminiscing about his sexual exploits with Ms Linnear which coincidentally fitted his Brown Sugar lyric. So far, I have no issue with the idea of the song and unlike our American cousins, I don’t think we in the UK had a particular issue in 1971 with interracial sex. If we cancelled all songs that refer to sex or drugs there would be very little left in the rock pantheon.
Once Mick arrived in Alabama to record the album Sticky Fingers, he had to finish the lyrics to Brown Sugar. Apparently, he sat with a yellow legal pad and soon came up with the song we now know. Based in a Deep South state, there is no doubt his mind would have wandered to the history of the place and what happened in the cotton plantations over a 100 years earlier. Again, there was interracial sex, but this time not of a consensual nature but that between master and slave. To be an attractive young black girl back then was a curse as you would have been repeatedly raped and forced to have sex with the white plantation owners and overseers, whilst their wives turned a blind eye. The verses of the song refer to this abhorrent practice which I really hope Mick included as a bit of a history lesson highlighting the gratification the white men got through using violence (the whip) towards a young girl.
Whatever Mick intended, the song now makes for a troubling mishmash of what happened during slavery, combined with references to the enjoyment to be had from both using heroin and having consensual sex with your black partner. A real juxtaposition. I can see how it wouldn’t go down well nowadays in the Southern States of the US. It was however a big hit in 1971 all over the world, as Keith Richards also came up with an excellent riff and rhythm for it. I’m tempted on this occasion not to cancel it but keep it in the public domain as it is still a great example of what the Rolling Stones did at their height and as a reminder of what happens when humans treat fellow humans as possessions or chattels, a practice that still goes on today.
Hope I’m not too out of kilter with everyone else although I think this one is going to be quite divisive.
Thank you, Alyson - as always, your research skills and historical perspective shine through. And yes, I do think we'll find a diversity of opinion below... yet I don't think we'll have too much disagreement overall.
Let's see what my old pal Martin from New Amusements thinks...
I must admit I hadn't really thought too much about, or listened too closely to, the lyrics of Brown Sugar before. I've been content to chug along with the riff, and just assumed the narrative was the singer's preference for black women, albeit expressed in sassy 70s dialogue. Maybe it was even an example of positive discrimination - after all, they "taste so good", presumably in comparison to plain old white sugar.
I do think that's an easy interpretation if you don't listen deeper - and as Alyson says above, it would be quite a button-pushing one for rock 'n' roll "bad boys" to make back in 1971.
But it's not about that, is it? It's about the slave trade, and more specifically about the rape and sexual assault of slave-traded women and girls.
The first two verses describe the trader and a house boy engaged in this, the last verse describes the narrator at it too. He attempts to explain this away, singing "I'm no school boy, but I know what I like" ... except that's no excuse.
The Rolling Stones have created a number of lyric videos for their biggest hits, and they're all up on their official YouTube channel... but there's no lyric video for this, which perhaps tells its own tale. And although it's their fourth most played song live (if setlist.fm is to be believed) they haven't done so since 2019. Maybe the band are in the process of slowly, gently cancelling it themselves? If so, that's good enough for me.
I think they probably are. Though as the legendary JC, aka The Vinyl Villain, suggests below, there are limits to self-cancellation in the world of rock 'n' roll...
I’ve long been troubled by this one. It is a ridiculously catchy tune, one that is tailor made for radio,and whose upbeat tempo seems to have a celebratory, ‘wave your hands in the air like you just don’t care’ feel about it.
But we really should care.
The lyrics are genuinely horrific as they glorify slavery, extreme violence against women and rape.
What makes it worse is how much Jagger seems to be enjoying singing the lyric...almost as if he is imagining himself as being the person carrying out all these acts of degradation, while the closer of ‘how come you taste so good, just like a black girl should’ interspersed with all sorts of whooping and hollering means racial stereotyping can be added to the charge sheet.
I believe that Jagger and Richards dropped Brown Sugar from the live set lists a few years back, so in that regard they at least have acknowledged it is a problematic song. But they and their management team will still happily collect the royalties that amass from the regular airings the song gets on radio stations...no real surprise given that the music industry is riddled with hypocrites.
It's easy to be a hypocrite when money is involved. Just ask Billy Bragg in his clifftop mansion. Actually, I think he sold that... no doubt to move into something even swishier. Not that I begrudge him a penny of it, because he's a socialist of the heart.
OK, so far we've all been in broad agreement. Though with each new comment, we seem to steer closer and closer to cancellation. Over to Walter from A Few Good Times In My Life. What do you make of Brown Sugar, Walter?
That's a really good example to talk about. I put the album on again and listened to it from start to finish, and I have to say that Brown Sugar is one of the weaker songs on this record. A simple rhythm and blues riff certainly doesn't make it one of their most popular. It's more likely the lyrics, which revolve around non-consensual sex between a guard and a slave girl.
It is well known that this type of lyrics are characteristic of Mick Jagger's attitude at that time, and he ventures into misogynistic territory that was later claimed by gangster rappers from the East Coast.
And no, I can't listen to this macho bullshit anymore. Obviously, the Rolling Stones feel the same way, since they removed the song from their live repertoire a few years ago and are trying to downplay this lyrical faux pas by claiming that the song is explicitly directed against slavery.
Ultimately, this song is one reason why we're talking about cancel culture.
Well, yes. Although Walter raises a good point that we touched on last time - and that's the preponderance of sexist attitudes still to be found in a lot of far more modern tunes from the world of rap and r 'n' b. The world has changed a lot since 1971... but how much has it really changed?
Someone else who, like Martin, hasn't really considered the lyrics of Brown Sugar until now is C from Sun Dried Sparrows...
I have a confession: I've never actually read, or given any thought at all, to the complete lyrics of 'Brown Sugar'... Perhaps it's because the tune and chorus are so familiar and it feels as if they have been for my entire life, that it's become a musical equivalent of "a part of the furniture". It's just there, and always has been, but it's never been that important to me either, so I couldn't actually recite it or sing along with it word for word. And now you've brought it into focus and, rather than just listen to it again, I sat down and read the lyrics in stark isolation. And the truth is, I felt really quite bothered by it.
I understand that it's describing a scenario and, as in murder ballads and songs like Tom Jones's 'Delilah' or Tony Christie's 'I Did What I Did For Maria', we can hopefully credit the songwriters/artists with (presumably!) not actually sharing the sentiments of the characters they inhabit in the song - just as we do with books, films, plays, etc. - we get that it's not autobiographical, nor are we going to think it's ok to murder someone or whatever just because we've heard a song about it. That's usually my reason for not wanting to cancel stuff.
But there's something about 'Brown Sugar' which I'm finding particularly discomforting / distasteful - now that I've finally paid full attention to it, that is! I think it's due to the combination of factors: slavery, racism, violence towards women and sexual objectification of a young black girl, punctuated with a particularly celebratory sounding chorus as our narrator appears to revel in it. I'm trying to analyse my new feelings about it now. Yes, perhaps that's what turns it for me - the inclusion of that chorus against the rest of it. If it had been an obvious 'story' type song all the way through, the verses could have been bracketed as such. But there's something about the way the chorus comes in which brings the story more up-to-date and seems to validate the sentiments, horribly. I don't know if I'm explaining this well...I'm finding it hard to describe and, to be honest, have completely surprised myself with this immediate reaction. All I know is, something about the song feels distinctly off now, for a multitude of reasons, but I had never even given it a second thought until asked to write about it here. So, Rol, this is quite the shock revelation for me. Contrary to my own expectations, I'm now not sure I really want to hear it again and given the huge Stones back catalogue to delve into for more superior songs too, that wouldn't really be a great loss. Wow, I hadn't anticipated this! And I'll be very interested to hear everyone else's views.
It's at times like this that I feel guilty for hosting this feature. Like I've spoiled this song for C now, and wouldn't it have been better to leave her happy with her surface interpretation? Ignorance is bliss. I hate the idea that this feature will spoil a song for anyone.
This seems like a good time to bring in the Dubhed himself, Khayem... because, unlike C, he appears fully aware of what's going on in this tune... and he's ready to put the boot in!
I might as well put my cards on the table and say that, however much is made of the legendary Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership, I find Jagger’s lyrics achingly poor most of the time. When I was in my teens, I saw the Stones as has-beens with nothing to say about my life and nothing to aspire to. My opinion about their music - the first decade and a half at least - has changed considerably over time but it’s fair to say that I still don’t go to The Rolling Stones to remind myself of Jagget’s lyrical prowess.
I never particularly liked Brown Sugar either, and that was before I stopped and listened more carefully to what Mick was singing, not just how he was singing it. The ‘ambiguity' about whether he’s referring to slavery or hard drugs or both is undermined by a heavy handed approach that even a naive would-be poet in Year 9 would think twice about committing to.
However, what defined the song for me was listening to the cassette version of Neil’s Heavy Concept Album inn 1984. Yes, as in Neil the character played by Nigel Planer in The Young Ones. The cassette offered up “extra verbal meanderings, including a 58-second ‘version’ of Brown Sugar.
In brief, Neil comes across a couple of buskers playing an instrumental riff, and he decides to get his guitar out of his bag and join in. Neil clearly has only a vague acquaintance with the song, coming in late when the buskers sing “Brown Sugar! How come you taste so good?”. As he echoes the next line, Neil realises what he’s singing and asks the buskers to stop. “Who wrote this song?” he asks. “I thought it was supposed to be about whole foods, free range eggs…"
And since then that’s what I always think of when I hear Brown Sugar.
Musically speaking, Brown Sugar is a good song. Lyrically, it’s terrible but rather than be cancelled, it should be cited as an example of how not to tell a story!
I've never heard Neil's version before, K... but clearly it's a thing of beauty and brilliance. Thank you.
I will say though that although I don't hold Mick Jagger up as one of rock's great wordsmiths, I do think from time to time he hits gold. Three examples below...
OK, maybe they're not going to steal Mr. Zimmerman's Nobel Prize In Literature, but I do think that all of those could be offered up as defence against any accusations of racism that might be levelled at Mick. He always seemed a pretty socially conscious dude...
That said, he's also written some very ill-advised lyrics... ones that make even Brown Sugar pale in comparison. Here's Our Man In Portugal... George!
The Rolling Stones, well, Jagger and Richard, have written some objectionable and quite nasty songs, such as Under My Thumb and Yesterday’s Papers. These two tracks seem to be deliberately offensive.
Brown Sugar, in comparison, is quite absurd with its language and I wonder if “no offence was meant”. Maybe I’m wrong. It’s yet another song where I dissociate from the lyric (or go to Georgie La-La land as my partner would say). And I say No to cancelling.
I'm surprised George didn't also mention this one, which deserved a mention back in the very first edition of the Cancel Culture Club, when we were debating Young Girl.
Going back to Martin's earlier point though... while we can't find a lyric video for Brown Sugar on the tube of you, we can find one for each of the above. 'Nuff said.
I thought it might be worth getting the opinion of an actual songwriter on this matter. So I consulted our resident troubadour, the wonderful Mr. John Medd...
Jagger’s "meagre" lyric writing? Who says?! Oh to have written *any* Stones song over the last 50 years…
Who am I to argue with an expert? But John, what about today's offering?
Brown Sugar? I love this song with every fibre of my being. Is it about cunningulus? Yep, probably.
Woah, woah - what now?
I just sent you a screen grab.
Okay... well, that certainly opens up a whole new line of enquiry...
Is it about Heroin? Yeah, that too. Does any of this matter? Of course not. It’s the Rolling Stones. In their pomp. In their majesty. Should it be cancelled? No! However, in America, they’ve cancelled it themselves seemingly and agreed not to play it live. Street fighting men? Maybe not so these days.
Of course, being a fan of a particular artist can make us more willing to overlook their tomfoolery. As anybody who still wants to listen to The Smiths will be forced to admit.
Over at No Badger Required, the estimable SWC recently held a vote on the Best Eponymous Albums Of All Time. Despite our host's own reservations (he refuses to even name the band these days, calling them only The Sm***s - I'm thinking of doing similar with Oasis, and referring to them only as *as*s from now on), their debut album came third in the countdown. I mention this to illustrate the complexities we wrestle with every time we fling open the doors of the Cancel Culture Club.
Mick Jagger is on record saying that he probably wouldn't be able to write this song in today's society. Which probably gives us some idea but I suppose back in the 70s Mick didn't remotely care about morals and all that.
Lyrically it is suspect. Musically, the riff at the start is incredible and Charlie Watts' drumming is amongst the best you'll hear and that sax solo about 90 seconds in is incredible.
It's also one of the best opening songs of any album anywhere.
But yeah...suspect...
SWC's comments illustrate the ambivalence we often feel when it comes to songs like this - the clash between head and heart, perhaps? And nobody summed that more perfectly this time than Swiss Adam from Bagging Area. That's why I saved his comments till the end...
The whole concept of cancelling art is problematic isn't it? Who gets to choose what's cancelled and what isn't? We usually deplore censorship. Regimes that ban art/ music/ literature are weak and authoritarian ones that are frightened of people, race, song, culture, sex, otherness. Cancelling anything is a high handed position to take. I suppose there's a difference between organic popular cancellation and government imposed cancellation but even so, the word cancel carries an ultimate weight of no return.
Some people try to separate the artist and the art and this seems an eminently sensible position to take but even here there is a sliding scale. Gary Glitter is done and gone. Michael Jackson's songs are still played on the radio. John Cleese complains long and hard about cancel culture- usually in mass market tabloid newspapers or on the tv and comes across as a mean spirited old duffer totally out of step with the modern world. Fawlty Towers is still (largely) funny.
Morrissey holds political beliefs and has attitudes about race that are impossible to justify but I can still enjoy The Smiths. Ian Brown has uttered some ridiculous shit about Covid and vaccines. I still listen to The Stone Roses. Nick Cave's position on Israel has been problematic for me and I don't agree with his attendance at whatever royal event he attended- the coronation?- but I get a huge amount from his music.
I used to love The Who but Roger Daltrey's knobheadery about Brexit and general small mindedness plus Pete Townsend's 'issues' (ok, arrest for child pornography) have made it difficult for me to listen to The Who. Have I cancelled them? Dunno- but I don't listen to them any more (made easier by the fact that I only really like The Who from 1965- 1969). I'm sure there are other artists whose views have put me off them.
Brown Sugar is a deeply problematic song. Racist? Yes. Sexist? Yes. A glorification of slavery? Yes. All these things and more. Utterly out of date attitudes and impossible to support. Even the Stones themselves have stopped playing it and Jagger has said that he'd check himself if he found himself writing those lyrics now. Keef maintains the song is about the 'horrors of slavery' but the tone, the music and the performance would suggest that everyone's really rather enjoying themselves rather than spotlighting the appalling treatment of female slaves on American plantations. If any song deserves to be cancelled, pulled and removed from playlists, it's probably Brown Sugar.
That guitar riff though...
Thank you, Adam. This is why I organised the Cancel Culture Club. Not to spoil records for C, and certainly not to ban them... but just to sneakily get people who are much smarter than me to explain my own feelings in ways that my own humble skills would be incapable of doing.
"It's All Coming Back To Me Now," you'll be able to say to your grandchildren, many years from now... "the day that Saturday Snapshots finally jumped the shark. The day Rol had a picture of Celine Dion at the top of the page..."
Give me a break: you try finding two different pictures of pop stars holding cameras every week. It's not as easy as it looks, you know. (Although I do have a few more in the bag.) Perhaps the day I run out will be the day I finally call it quits. Until then... My Heart Will Go On.
A very closely fought game yesterday, between Lynchie, Chris, Alyson and C in particular. I think Lynchie just got the title. Well done to Charity Chic, Rigid Digit, George and Martin (Come Together... as one... like George Martin) for mopping up the hard ones.
10. Beautiful Persian queen makes Pilgrim's Progress via choo choo.
Look up "rock 'n' roll" in the dictionary. You should find the following...
If I could stick my pen in my heart
And spill it all over the stage
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would you think the boy is strange? Ain't he strange?
My instinct, before I started compiling this Top Ten, was that this would be the undisputed winner. But in the end, the devil himself couldn't compete with...
1. Gimme Shelter Just frighteningly good.
I know - you just can't get no satisfaction from this Top Ten, can you?
Form an orderly queue and start listing your (missing) favourites below...
