The same song also encourages the listener to “Have a drink, have a drive,” which is kind of irresponsible advice to casually stick into a pop number.
I always thought it was a kind of cheeky little song where we were supposed to assume he didn’t have nearly as much control over her as he thought. The girl was pushing him around, but then goes all subservient? I don’t think so. The singer is convincing himself that the difference in the clothes she wears, etc., is because of him; the listener can figure out that it’s actually him who’s under her thumb.
Even if your interpretation is correct, it’s a common situation regardless of the genders involved. And anyway, nobody’s gender is even mentioned in the song.
Agreed. I never thought of it as anything but false bragging or wishful thinking out loud. Maybe because the music is so , I don’t know, nuanced? Complex? Sorry, I don’t know the correct word but something about the music doesn’t match such a simplistic message.
Also, to those commenting on the “take a drinke take a drive” lyric, I don’t think he’s listing them as related activities; I think they’re just two examples of what one can do in the summertime. Besides, MADD had not yet gotten it’s hands around the collective conscious of society. Nobody was particularly concerned about drinking and driving.
Yeah, that song’s pretty fucked up IMHO.
Well, to be honest, I really wasn’t much aware of the song. Heard the cool opening and all. But later encountered the song after becoming an atheist, and it just rubs me wrong. It wasn’t the song that changed, it was me.
Well, I just have a problem with that kind of message. It’s a personal thing.
Agreed.
Exactly. When I hear people claim the song is misogynistic, I just think they’re not giving the guys enough credit. A song about a deluded guy who’s dating a powerful, self-directed women but tries to brag to his buddies about how he’s really the one calling the shots is a far more interesting song than a straight reading of the lyrics, simply “some jagwagon tells his girlfriend how to dress”, would be. And I’m pretty sure Mick and Keef were aware of that.
The music’s and Mick’s tone are really important to getting it. I once heard a wannabe punk band, some “modern rock” artists, cover the song, spitting out the lyrics and sneering throughout. Without the marimba, without the playfullness of Mick’s singing and that swagger, without any tongue-in-cheek feel, it just sounds like the nastiest meanest song you’ve ever heard. Context is key.
While I admit that after listening to those lyrics I found the song a little bit disturbing, it does not keep me from enjoying it.
After all, I enjoy watching movies about serial killers. It does not mean I condone their actions, does it? How is enjoying a song about serial killers any different?
Slayer’s “Silent Scream” I am told, is an anti-abortion song. In spite of that, I still think it rocks. I don’t skip over it when I am listening to slayer, but it does disappoint me a bit somewhere in the back of my mind whenever I hear it.
I wonder how much of this applies to Britain in 1970, where Mungo Jerry are from? I was just a toddler at the time.
In what way is it wrong? (I too have very little knowledge of evangelical theology, considering my family’s religious background is Reform Jewish and Greek Orthodox.)
With regard to Under My Thumb, I respectfully disagree. I think Jagger/Richards are trying to create a portrait of a really despicable person, and the song is intended to make you uncomfortable when you realize you’re being given the view from that person’s eyes. Cf. The Beatles - Run for Your Life.
EDIT: My interpretation of In the Summertime is a little more charitable. I think it’s slightly less that poor girls are cheap fucks, and more that if you don’t take a girl with a rich father out for nice meals, you won’t get to see her anymore, because Daddy will disapprove.
How I have always interpreted In the Summertime: we are a group of friends with no money who want to have a good time. If one of us is dating a gal with money, he’ll go out to dinner and she’ll pay. If not, we’ll just do whatever we feel like - maybe drink a few beers, maybe go for a drive - that doesn’t cost much. The final lyrics pretty much set it out:
If she’s rich, if she’s nice, bring your friends and we’ll all go into town.
That is, if she’s rich and too nice to say no, they’ll all go out on her (daddy’s) dime. Basically, a bunch of hippie guys who’d rather let their dates pay than get jobs when they’d rather go swimming.
I internalize music at a whole 'nother level vs. watching a show. Immersing myself into the persona in the song squicks me out in a much squickier way than if I saw the movie version. YMMV.
This is very true, and there is a cover by Oleta Adams (from the Two Rooms tribute to Taupin & John) that is absolutely gorgeously heart wrenching.
I’m not sure that’s what they intended. “The whole idea was that I was under HER, she was kicking ME around. So the whole idea is absurd, all I did was turn the tables around. So women took that to be against femininity where in reality it was trying to ‘get back’ against being a repressed male.”
:rolleyes: This is the very last time I’m going to harp on this, but…this is just absurd.
- Forty years ago, it was unheard of for any girl, no matter how rich, to pay, out on a date. (exception: a couple in a real, intimate relationship, who arrived at an arrangement, not just casually dating, and she might slip him a few bucks under the table.) 2) It just didn’t happen, no matter how much the hippie guys wished for handouts from a rich girl. Who weren’t even hanging around with hippie guys, they were out dating rich boys. They may have gone slumming on occasion with a poor guy, but even so, they did not take him to the country club, hand him a menu, and say, “order anything you want, Daddy has an account here”. 3) Any self respecting man forty years ago would feel like an impoverished loser, letting some woman pay.
Which leads back to: “if her daddy’s rich, take her out for a meal”. He will spend money on a date at a restaurant with a rich girl, because he wants to look like a nice young man who knows how to show a girl a good time. That - showing his daughter a good time - will also impress her rich Daddy, and that will come in handy should thoughts of marriage or a job offer at rich Daddy’s business crop up in the future. Rich Daddy will be more inclined to welcome him to the family or give him a job. That would NOT happen if rich girl ponied up for the both of them, he would be seen as poor, shiftless, a leech, and a lazy bum…So the poor girl doesn’t get money spent on a restaurant meal - because he doesn’t have to ingratiate himself with her poverty stricken father! The poor girl should just be grateful she’s got a date at all, getting out of her shabby house, right?
Re: “Spirit in the Sky”
If it makes you feel any better about it, there was no serious religious intent behind the song. Norman Greenbaum apparently just wrote it to see if he could write a “gospel song” – it could be taken as a sort of parody of none-too-deep religious pop music.
The song’s narrator says he’s not a sinner and that he’s never sinned, while Evangelicals are generally big on the idea that everyone is a sinner and thus doomed to suffer hellfire unless they open their hearts to Jesus. I think almost every Christian denomination would disagree with the narrator’s claim that he has never committed a sin.
By denying that he has ever sinned the narrator may actually be committing the “unforgivable sin” (in some denominations, at least) of rejecting the redemption offered by God. If he does not believe himself to be a sinner, then he’s presumably not repenting of or asking to be forgiven for his sins.
Lamia basically nailed it.
My (ex) brother-in-law was lead guitar in a modestly successful Christian rock band. Their cover of “Spirit in the Sky” solved the theological issue very neatly. Instead of “I’m not a sinner / I’ve never sinned / I’ve got a friend named Jesus,” his band sang “I’m a sinner / I know I’ve sinned / (but) I’ve got a friend named Jesus.” Completely alters the theology of the song, and brings it into mainstream evangelism.
Yep. I used to love that song, until I parsed that part of it, since then I have never been able to enjoy it the same way.
Same for “Under My Thumb” as well.
I still kind of like “Follow Me,” but it did take a hit when I found out what it was about.
As for “Possum Kingdom,” I thought that song was about a vampire. Not that different from a serial killer, I suppose, they’re both gonna kill ya. But at least with the vampire you (may) have eternal “life” to look forward to afterward.
Oh, and how about Pumped Up Kicks by Foster The People? Sounds like just a cute little pop song until you really listen … :smack:
I used to think the title/chorus of the song Strange Overtones by David Byrne and Brian Eno was actually “strange are the tones.”
I don’t dislike the song, but I liked it a lot more when I wrongly thought it was called “Strange Are The Tones.” That phrase is much more poetic and interesting to me than the real line.