5. Her father found a Newlove... but carried on with the old one too.
Kirsty MacColl's mum was Jean Newlove. Her father, Ewan MacColl "was also in a relationship with folk singer, multi-instrumentalist and songwriter Peggy Seeger (a relationship that would continue until his death in 1989), and already had a son with Seeger."
My old car started making a noise. Not a very loud noise, but a noise I knew wasn't there before, and so I took it to the local friendly mechanic who diagnosed it as terminal. With 92,000 miles in the clock, it needed a new clutch, a new gearbox... who knows what else?
So I had to trade it in for a newer one. But while that was going on (never an enjoyable process - in fact, dealing with car salesmen is right up there with contracting Ebola or being stuck in an elevator with Donald Trump in my book), I still had to drive the old car to work every day (a round trip of 60-70 miles), hoping it didn't pack up completely. It was a very stressful couple of weeks.
None of those is really appropriate as I haven't (and probably never will) bought a brand new car. The one I've traded in for is 5 years old, and that's pretty new for me. So I'm going to settle for this...
Tyler Ballgame is my first name to watch of 2026. He's got a classy Roy Orbison vocal delivery (developed while singing Crying at Open Mic Nights), with nods to Harry Nilsson, Elvis, Macca and... well, a little bit of the old Father John Misty self-awareness.
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.
Mick 'n' Keef wrote Wild Horses in 1969, recording a rough demo which they decided wasn't really worth taking any further. Mick denies popular speculation that the lyrics are about the end of his relationship with Marianne Faithful, while Keef reckons the song is about being sick of touring.
The Stones gave a copy of the demo to their mate Gram Parsons who liked the song more than they did, recording it for the second Flying Burrito Brothers album, Burrito Deluxe, in 1970.
Hearing the Burrito version encouraged Mick 'n' Keef to give the song another chance, recording it properly for the album Sticky Fingers and releasing it as the follow-up single to Brown Sugar in the US.
Neither version made the UK charts, but in 2009 the song made our Top Ten thanks to a version recorded by Susan Boyle following her performance on America's Got Talent. Boyle chose the song because for her it reflected "a personal story about how achieving such massive success extremely quickly has affected her life". Before you pour scorn on Susan's version, you might be interested to read that Mick considered it a "ghostly version... much better than anything I had ever done".
None of these are sequels though - they're just covers.
The sequel didn't arrive until 2022, thanks to this gorgeous story song by First Aid Kit from their album Palomino, in which two young lovers drive across America with Wild Horses on the car stereo... highlighting irreconcilable differences in their relationship.
We passed a canyon
We passed a fire brigade headed up the mountains
They said "The wood's ablazin'" and then we got hungry
Stopped at a diner
You flirted with the waitress and I didn't even care
Where do you go to when you look past me?
Do you see yourself miserable and free?
Such a strange notion, to see you clearly
When love's shadow stood up and left the room
We played Wild Horses on the car stereo
You prefer the Rolling Stones' and I like Gram's
No mention of Susan Boyle in this story. That really would have tested their relationship!
I
believe I've passed the age of consciousness And
righteous rage I
found that just surviving was a noble fight I
once believed in causes too I
had my pointless point of view And
life went on no matter who was wrong or right
So far in this feature, I’ve looked in detail at all manner
of negative emotions, including sadness, anxiety, low self-esteem and paranoia.
But there’s one emotion I’ve danced around confronting face on, possibly
because it’s the one that scares me the most – in other people and in myself.
Anger.
Anger, can make you old
Yes it can
I said anger
Will make you sick children,
Anger - destroy your soul
I knew this was going to be a big one, and I knew it was
going to take some serious investigation to understand and… well, we’ll have to
see whether management is possible. That’ll come further down the line, I
guess. Let’s start with an attempt at understanding. And who better to help me
get to grips with this most unpleasant and destructive of emotions than our old
friend, sweary Dr. Faith? Her book Unfuck Your Brain certainly made my grey matter less opaque, so I
figured she might be able to offer similar insight with one of the follow-ups…
Almost straight away, Dr. Faith pointed me in another
direction, towards the work of Dr. R. Douglas Fields, a neuroscientist who
sought to find an answer to the anger inside him after he beat up a pickpocket
who tried to steal his wallet while he was on holiday in Barcelona. When I read
about his research, I couldn’t help but be reminded of this guy…
Since his creation in 1962, the Incredible Hulk has remained
one of the most consistently popular comic book characters because he appeals
to our most primal emotion: the desire to have a big tantrum and smash the shit
out of everything when life isn’t going our way. Unlike most other superheroes,
the Hulk doesn’t want to save the world, avenge the death of a loved one or
help those less powerful than he is. All he really wants is to be left alone.
As I tell my clients, “you are allowed to be crazy, but you aren’t allowed to act crazy. Being irritated as fuck
because someone jacked the parking spot you were waiting for? Totally legit.
Going postal over it? Not so helpful. Not so helpful to everyone around you,
not so helpful to greater society, and – for purely selfish reasons – not so
helpful to you.
As we've discussed in previous installments of this series, emotions are just the brain's way of sending us information designed to make us take action. However, our brains were designed for the primitive world - a world where everyone thought and spoke like Hulk, and fighting or fleeing were pretty much the only responses available if we were faced with saber-toothed tiger or another neanderthal from the tribe down the track who carried a bigger club. Sadly, we don't live in those times anymore, much as our brains might like to think we do...
Technology has evolved faster than humans, so we have
bodies adapted for simpler times. Instead of hunting, gathering, cuddling, and
napping, we are crossing more terrain on a daily basis, interacting with more
people, and taking in far more information than we are built to manage. It’s a
continuous overload.
How do we deal with that overload and stop Hulking out at every little thing that doesn't go our way? That's what I'm going to try to figure out over the next few weeks (though it could actually take months - there's a lot to digest). Because I don't want to be angry all the time, for the reason Bill Bixby explained in the simplest terms possible, back when I was a kid. "You won't like me when I'm angry." And we all want to be liked, right?
Unbelievable... but true. There's more than one band called The Rolling Stones...
THE ROLLING STONES #1
Let's start in 1930, thirteen years before Mick 'n' Keef were even born. The original Rolling Stones were Jimmie Adams and Bud Jamison, a pair of singing comic vagabonds who toured the US in the early 30s.
THE ROLLING STONES #2
Next stop 1958. Well, 1955 to begin with, as these Rolling Stones originally started out as the backing band of one Lucky Hill from Mississippi. Three years later, they were backing one Andy Anderson (not to be confused with Neighbours love song warbler Angry Anderson). Presumably, Lucky Hill had retired by this point and was living off all the cash he'd made by, ahem, inventing rock 'n' roll...
THE ROLLING STONES #3
From the same Philadelphia-based record label that released a song by "The Beatles" in the mid-70s. Apparently these guys were originally called The Time Tones. According to the label, this was written by M. Jackoff, J. Lemmon and K. Richard, produced by Mickey Most, Andrew Loog Oldham and Philip Spector, and featured "Charlie Watts on toilet".
THE STONES #4
Not technically Rolling, but it takes some stones to name your band The Stones in 1982. These guys were from Dunedin in New Zealand though, so perhaps they'd never heard of Mick n Keef?
ROLLING STONES #5
Whereas these American punks were clearly just taking the piss in 1987... in more ways than one.
THE ROLLING STONES #6
From 2019, and a cassette only release called Who the Fuck is Mick Jagger? The Very Best of the Rolling Stones. By this point, all bets are off.
THE ROLLING STONES #7
Not chronologically the newest Rolling Stones, but I saved them for the end anyway... despite being unable to find any info about them on the interweb.
Which Rolling Stones gathered no moss... and which were like a complete unknown?
As we grow older, our record collection grows older with us. The rock n roll survivors we grew up with (not to mention the ones who were well established before we were even born) continue making music, and we keep enjoying it. For the most part, anyway. There are, of course, those artists who carry on well past their sell-by date, don't find anything new to say, and become shadows of their former selves... and when I think about them, I have even more respect for Billy Joel, who packed in making new music thirty years ago to protect his legacy.
All that said, sometimes even the faded stars of yesteryear pull a blinder. And credit where it's due, I never though the Rolling Stones would release a single as good as this so far into their bus pass years...
(Damon Albarn hates that video. So they must be doing something right.)
The album Hackney Diamonds is as good as anything The Stones have released since the beginning of the 80s. That may sound like faint praise, but I was surprised by how solid the whole thing sounded. The Lady Gaga collaboration is a couple of steps down the same ladder as Gimme Shelter, and the video is a hoot, as Ms. Germanotta tries her best to out-Mick Mick.
Then there's a Keef sung tune which proves he should do that sort of thing more often ("he's too shy," says Mick) and a proper bluesy throwback at the end... which sounds like the kind of song you'd expect the Rolling Stones to be making in their 80s... were it not for the fact that it closes a record of full-tilt rock n roll riffs from Keef and sneeringly playful invective from Mick. And to top it all off, they only go and invite another old geezer to play bass on one track... and it's a lot more listenable than that "new" Beatles track that was inflicted on us earlier in the year.
Kevin Rowland turned 70 this year, so he's still a spring chicken by Mick n Keef's standards. The lead single from the latest Dexys album promised great things, a classic Dexys soul stomper that showcased a man dripping self confidence from every pour. There are a couple more tracks on the first half of The Feminine Divine which also stand out, though the latter part of the record turns into a huge celebration / confessional of submissive relationships which borders on unintentionally hilarious at times. Still, it's better than anything Van Morrison's done lately.
Born a year or so earlier than Kevin, but still going strong, is John Mellencamp, who just released another new record, hot on the heels of last year's Strictly a One-Eyed Jack. Orpheus Descending treads similar ground, occasionally going a little too earnest and worthy for my liking, though Mellencamp's late stage Tom Waits growl is pleasing to the ear, and his practiced Grumpy Old Man demeanour is enough to keep me coming back for more.
Ron and Russell Mael are both in their late 70s. You wouldn't know it from listening to the latest Sparks album though. They sound as youthfully irreverent as ever. They're also responsible for the year's ultimate Grumpy Old Man song, a track which delights in telling us that life goes downhill fast from the moment we're born...
Nothing is as good as they say it is
That's the way it is
I wish I'd known beforehand
I was born just 22 hours ago
But I want to go
Back to my former quarters
Take a look around and you'd understand
This is not a place I could ever stand
Ugliness, anxiety, phony tans
It ain't for me
That's all
Another old timer who's definitely refusing to grow old gracefully is Mr. Vincent Furnier. Road is his 29th album (22nd as a solo artist, having taken the name of his former band) and it's much better than it deserves to be.
It didn't seem like two minutes since I was eulogising Lamont Dozier, when last week came the news of Barrett Strong's passing. The top song I played for Lamont is just as fitting here...
As a singer, Barrett Strong is best remember for the original version of Money (That’s What I Want), a song that would later be covered by both the Beatles & the Stones... not to mention The Flying Lizards. Berry Gordy claimed he wrote the tune, and removed Barrett's name from the songwriting credits... Barrett remembered it differently, but wasn't going to bite the hand that fed... even if it wasn't feeding half as much as it should have been.
...and let's finish there too, more's the pity. Compared to Lamont, Barrett doesn't really get the lyrical tributes he deserves. Which I find odd, considering it's much easier to rhyme Strong that Dozier. So let's close with another Whitfield / Strong classic. RIP, Barrett.
