Reading:
- Sheila Whiteley (1997) “Little Red Rooster v. the Honky Tonk Woman: Mick Jagger, Sexuality, Style and Image,” from Sexing the Groove
Listening:
- Rolling Stones, “Cocksucker Blues” (available as youtube recording above)
Optional:
- Steve Waksman (1996) “’Every Inch of My Love: Led Zeppelin and the Problem of Cock Rock,” Journal of Popular Music Studies
8 comments:
Question:
When the Stones were first becoming popular, do you think people actually saw the musicians as bisexual, or is it only our analysis today that addresses the issue of, for instance, Jagger’s attempt to arouse both sexes? Would the perception of bisexuality have affected the Stones’ popularity in any way?
Artifact Discussion:
The lyrics to “Cocksucker Blues” are overtly sexual, and sexual in a way that implies male-to-male interaction. If not homosexual, the Rolling Stones at the very least give the impression that they are bisexual. Whiteley states, “The lyrics are strongly focused on imagery” when talking about the song “Sing This Altogether (See What Happens),” and I think the same point is valid for “Cocksucker Blues.” The listener has several details from the song, such as the mentioning of the young policeman’s tight helmet and his truncheon, and this facilitates the creation of mental images. The listener is able to escape the outside world and enter the metaphysical experience.
One impression I had from reading the article was that the Rolling Stones had many male fans because the Stones emphasized the sexual prowess of the male. Their songs showed “no coaxing to orgasm” but instead a mere dominance that focused on masculinity. However, the article also talked about the dancing and make-up worn by the Rolling Stones. “Cocksucker Blues” shows both aggressiveness (and thus traditional masculinity) and the homoeroticism inherent in the lyrics. The song does take a masculine stand in its addressing of words (such as suck, cock, etc.), but the fact that the lyrics are talking about male-to-male sexual interaction gives the song a definite homosexual vibe.
This furthers my question posed earlier. What did audiences mainly see in the songs by the Rolling Stones: the aggressive diction or the homoerotic lyrics?
Question:
Whiteley suggests that Mick Jagger's live performances "involve a self-presentation which is, at one and the same time, both masculine and feminine" (67). Specifically, Jagger portrays an "aggressive and uncaring masculinity" (71) and a femininity based on "the image of the dominatrix" (77). Could Jagger have alternatively portrayed an aggressive masculinity and passive femininity? Would that be comparatively ineffective?
Artifact Discussion:
The lines "Oh, where can I get my cock sucked?/Where can I get my ass fucked?" suggest both heterosexual and homosexual desire just as Whiteley asserted (67). In the subsequent lines "I may have no money/But I know where to put it every time," there's a dismissal of valuing men as financial providers and an assertion that men's real value comes from sexual competence. When the song began, the tone was whining and withdrawn, but as soon as the subject of finding sexual relief comes up, the tone became assertive and loud. Again, this underscored the importance of sexual experience for men. Towards the end of last class, we were asked whether there was a relationship between gender roles in music and the gender roles people act out in real life. Whiteley suggests that there is, in fact, such a correlation. She refers to the Rolling Stones' performance at Altamont in which "LSD was tied to orgiastic exhibitionism" while Jagger commissioned violence in his songs (84). Whiteley's argument is that the use of drugs and glorifying of the occult created an anti-authoritarian environment; when combined with the messages about violence and aggressive masculinity employed by the Rolling Stones, it became a lethal combination (84). Some people act out highly inappropriate gender roles when they are intoxicated, and others do not. This suggests that it's a combination of individual subjectivity and socialization that results in the inappropriate behavior, although substance abuse may aggravate it. While substance abuse contributes to a lethal environment, it's not the sole cause. As far as what contributes to subjectivity and socialization, Whiteley suggests that the "obsessive violence" in Jagger's stage performance was "an active constituent in establishing particular behavioral patterns" (85).
Question:
It is bizarre that cockrockers like the Rolling Stones and Led Zepellin release songs about true love like “Angie.” The Waksman article mentions that the songs do not fit into the general cockrocker image. What is the point of releasing these songs? Have the artists gained enough notoriety that they can drop the act and demonstrate some true feelings that are not entirely sexual? Was it in response to the all of the disastrous events and deaths in the lives of the Stones? How does the self-pity fit in? It seems like after all of the tragedies it would be the appropriate time to release Angie. Instead the Stones released Honky Tonk Woman.
Artifact discussion:
This song opens with a deep R&B raspy voice but it is not quite black. It seems to have a southern twang to it, like Tom Petty’s voice. The beginning is not quite sexual because of the slow tempo, and the volume of the singer over the soft guitar has an ominous feel to it. Then the shocking chorus begins. It is strikingly heterosexual:
“wait till I get my cock sucked” and strikingly homosexual: “wait till I get my ass fucked.” The message does not seem typical Jagger. It is not forward or s&m, but rather someone is “fucking” him. I’m a bit confused by the lyric “I ain’t got no money but I know where to put it everytime.” It lacks power because Jagger has no money, but he is control. He knows where to put the money. The two main aspects of the song, sex and blues seem to characterize the Stones at the time. They were very hedonistic but also undergoing a reality check due to the Altamont drama amongst other things.
Question:
Sheila Whiteley's article contrasts The Rolling Stones with The Beatles. Do you think that there was any overlap in their fan bases? Or on the other hand, do you think that Beatles fans were outright disgusted by the crude sexuality conveyed by The Rolling Stones at the time? Did The Beatles have any crude aspect to them, as well?
Artifact Discussion:
To be completely honest, I'm not really sure what to make out of "Cocksucker Blues." Whiteley describes The Rolling Stones' music as explicitly crude. However, I did not think that it could reach such an extreme as it does in "Cocksucker Blues." There are a few interesting things to take into account from this song. Firstly, I find it ironic that the song is so slow, mellow, and bluesy. I would generally classify songs of strong masculine expression to be upbeat and fast-paced. Throughout this course, I feel that we have established a link between guitar-heavy, hard rock songs and masculinity. Thus, when Mick Jagger says lines such as "get my cock sucked" and "get my ass fucked" during instrumental pauses, the words are really accentuated. It gives the song a higher shock value, and I'm sure that was true especially during the early 1960s when it was released.
Then, of course the second thing that must be noted about the song is the homoerotic aspect of it. When first hearing the lyrics, "where can I get my ass fucked" and "he fucked me with his truncheon," I was very confused that such a highly sexualized rock star would choose these words. Even more awe striking to me was when I read in Whiteley's article that Mick Jagger had a sexual appeal to both sexes, including heterosexual males. I'm not sure if it were lyrics like these that appealed to men. However, my personal opinion is that homosexual men would be offended by these lyrics, rather than turned on. Was this possibly a political statement at the time for a push towards open sexuality of any sort?
Discussion Question:
What did you think influenced Mick Jagger to put on a Satanic image of himself at public performances? Did he just want to be rebellious – especially against conservatives, or did he have any hidden, symbolic meanings behind that facade?
Artifact Discussion:
Even though there are no explicit references to the devil in this song, it is evident that “Cocksucker Blues” can be viewed as “Jagger’s symbolic celebration of power, sexuality, and satanism" – its music and lyrics demonstrate all three of these characteristics (Whitely 83). The sexual element of the song also overlaps with the other two (power and satanism).
The power element in the song is evident in the harshness of Jagger’s voice: his voice dominates the guitar playing in the background, and it has a rough edge to it. He draws out certain words and makes them louder than the ones around them. There is organization to this accentuation though, for many of the loud words in “Cocksucker Blues” are on certain beats. Thus, there is a rhythm to the song, and such a pattern of rhythmic emphasis demonstrates Jagger’s sexuality. Like we had discussed in class a few weeks ago, rhythmic beats convey sexual undertones and intentions in the artist to arouse the audience. In addition to accentuation, “Cocksucker Blues” features sexual lyrics that may even be classified as bisexual. Jagger sings about knowing “where to put it [his money] every time” and uses a sexual reference to a “young policeman”. Satanism is demonstrated by the sexual motivation of the song; Jagger sings about how he wants sexual relations (with either men or women by what the lyrics imply), and there is a lack of consideration for and courtesy to the other party involved. Jagger even shows this contrast indirectly by emphasizing how he is “a lonesome schoolboy… [who] just came into town” and wanted to simply survey London. This innocent connotation contrasts with the demonic, sexual motives that drive him.
Why did the Stones gather more of a male following than the Beatles?
In her article, Whitely discusses how the Rolling Stones gathered an integrated fan base of both men and women. In time, their male fan base overshadowed that of their female fans and boys across America and the world began buying Rolling Stones’ posters to hang in their rooms. Perhaps it was the unavailability of the Stones that enticed this male audience. Men watched as Mick Jagger simply ignored the shrieks of his adoring female fans. Whitely recounts how “The Stones stared straight ahead, didn’t twitch once, and the girls only gasped. Almost as if the Stones weren’t touchable, as if they were protected by some invisible ring. So they moved on and disappeared. And the girls went limp behind and were quiet. After a few seconds, some of them began to cry” (71). While The Beatles caused many young women to cry out of sheer adoration for the band, the Stones achieved a kind of power over their female fans through their detachment. This power over women probably appealed to their male fane base, who may have desired the same success with women.
The song “Cocksucker Blues” definitely suggests that the Stones attempted to identify with their male audience through homoerotic means as well. The band was unique in their ability to mesmerize and sexually attract both men and women. But I have a hard time believing that the Stones remained entirely detached from the whims of their fan base. I think they gave their fans exactly what they wanted to hear through their highly erotic songs, indicating their personal obsession with the duality of sex—both homosexual and heterosexual.
Question:
Whiteley draws contrasts the highly sexual performances of Jagger and the Rolling stones with that of the Beatles. Did the Rolling Stones have anything like a sexualized version of Beatlemania since they played to so many sexual fantasies?
Artifact Discussion:
Before hearing “Cocksucker Blues”, it was hard for me to grasp exactly what it was about Mick Jagger and the music that Whiteley was talking about. However from seeing the images and from the very first lyric, I was clued in. The sort of high pitch whining sound to his voice and the images of him sitting in positions make him look and sounds unconfident, almost like a young teenage boy searching for his sexual identity.
As the song continues I was shocked at the explicit homosexual nature of the lyrics: “wait till I get my cock sucked, wait till I get my ass fucked.” It goes on to sounds almost like a homosexual fantasy about being raped by a police officer: “well he fucked me with his truncheon, and his helmet was way too tight”. And Mick Jagger sounds like he is in pain while singing the lyrics. I can now understand why Whiteley talks about the female dominatrix, the submissive woman, the androgyne.
Jagger is playing to the homosexual and dominatrix woman looking to take advantage of the “lonesome schoolboy” who in reality wants to fulfill his demonic, satanic, or more accurately hedonistic desires.
This image conflicts directly with the aggressive and macho image that I had previously assigned to Jagger, and one that we hear in other songs. However listening again to “Honky Tonk Women” I found that Jagger again is the male being almost used by women. The roles of the male and female are reversed in the song, something I had never realized before.
Question: In performance, is it often that the very thing that surprises fans/ puts them off also draws them in, or were the fans immediately hooked? How much of Jagger’s image and appeal as a “sexual” being, was truly admired/envied and how much of it was othered? Did both women and men identify with the Stones and their music? In what ways?Discussion:Within the article, the commentary on “disruptive potential of sexual passion”, “subordination of the female” and “sexual brutality”, as they relate to the music almost frightens me in a sense. So when I was first listening to the song, I didn’t have much of a reaction. The rhythms and mood of the music had a bluesy familiarity, and the singing evoked no strange feelings at first. One might feel through the sameness of the melody quite trance like, perhaps at ease, kind of just swayed by the music. However, I was caught off guard by the abrupt way in which the overtly sexual lyrics were brought in—very casually, but definitely obvious. If words have a power to evoke images, I can only imagine what such words might do to a susceptible audience.
While reading the article, the terms all-powerful male, in control, and the like really took me by surprise as they were used in accordance with descriptions portraying femininity at the same time. While in my mind, powerful and female aren’t mutually exclusive, in the typical scripts/ narratives of what it means to be masculine/ feminine the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. It also caught me by surprise that though the performance by Jagger/ the Stones was seen as other, the female was still cast as the other, still a sexual object, at least according to highlighted critiques in the article. With notably gendered performances, how much of the performed ambiguity was psychologically or socially influential and how much of it came as a result of the times/ movements (musical or otherwise) already underway?
Post a Comment