In 2007, the American satirist and critic (and lifelong Rolling Stones fan) Joe Queenan belatedly discovered that there was something troubling about the words to one of the band’s biggest hits. Writing inThe Guardian, he claimed to have only recently familiarised himself with the full lyrics to “Brown Sugar”, despite having heard the song hundreds of times.
“Many people, myself included, do not mind lyrics as long as they do not get in the way of the music, and those of us who share this view sometimes don’t even hear the lyrics.” he wrote. “While I was long aware in a kind of general way that ‘Brown Sugar’ was a song about a white man with an intense, perhaps unwholesome interest in black women, I wasn’t aware of the white slaver overtones until I went online to read the lyrics.
“No two ways about it: these lyrics are offensive to black women. Thank God we have rappers to defend their honour.”
Ignoring Queenan’sironic dig at certain sections of the rap community, histardy realisation as to the track’s subjectmatter led to fresh debate, but it was by no means the first time it had come under the microscope.Mick Jagger himself spoke about how it was“all the nasty subjects in one go”during an interview withRolling Stonemagazine founder Jann Wenner in 1995.
“I would never write that song now, I would probably censor myself,”he said.“I’d think,‘Oh God, I can’t. I’ve got to stop. I can’tjust write raw like that.’”
There is a school of thought that suggests Jagger may have been oblivious to thelyric’spotential to offendwhen he wroteit(with a rumoured working title of“Black Pussy”), agedjust26,on locationin Australiafor his starring role in the filmNed Kelly. That same school presumes he was none the wiser during the recording of the trackat Muscle Shoals Sound Studioin Alabama–astatetrying to live down itssignificant partAmerica’s 19thcenturyslave trade.
Since then,he has been at least partially mindful of difficulties with the song, and at one point in the 1980s he opted, with no fanfare, to stop singing the first verse line“hear him whip the women.”
However, it wasn’t until 2021, on the eveof another world tour,that the band announcedthe songwas being“phased out”of their live setaltogether–morethan 50 years after they’d debut thenumberduringtheir infamousshow at the Altamont Speedway, California.
The decision may have been prompted by anotherRolling Stonepiece,from2019,in which TV producer Ian Brennan spoke about the music selected for the hit showGlee, and why the song had always been on an unofficial no-go list:“The call is not for censorship, but greater consciousness and sensitivity.
“This particular case is far from nit-picking or searching into the furthest corners of someone’s history for any misstep.‘Brown Sugar’is not some obscure B-side.”
Prior to the’21No Filtertourthe song had featured at 1,139 Stones gigs, making it–accordingto the archive website Setlist.fm–theband’s second-mostfrequently performed song, after“Jumpin’Jack Flash”.
“We’ve played ‘Brown Sugar’ every night since 1970, so sometimes you think, ‘We’ll take that one out for now and see how it goes,’” hetold theLos Angeles Times. “We might put it back in.”
Inthesame article, Keith Richards claimed to be puzzled by thelong-running controversy, andcriticism from black women in particular:“I’m trying to figure out with the sisters quite where the beef is.
“Didn’t they understand this was a song about the horrors of slavery? But they’re trying to bury it. At the moment I don’t want to get into conflicts with all of this shit, but I’m hoping that we’ll be able to resurrect the babe in her glory somewhere along the track.”
Up to now, though, the song remains benched, an ignominious ending for a hitherto live“banker”–althoughithas yetto be seenifthat benching will extend to recordreleases.The last Stoneshitscompilation,Honk, was issued in 2019.
The group’s decision to remove“Brown Sugar”from set lists wasn’t welcomed by everyone, with journalist Piers Morgan taking to Twitter to insistthe songwasanti-slavery. In a follow-up article for theDaily Mail, he argued its lyrics were“aimed at defending and supporting black women,”while taking theStones themselvesto task for buckling under pressure.
“The woke-fuelled narrative will now be that the songisracist, so the Stones are therefore racist, and they’ve abandoned performing it because they accept these assertions,”he wrote.
“Given this cowardly climbdown, let me make the case for the defence on the Stones’ behalf: there is nothing racist about ‘Brown Sugar’.”
With an arguably more level head, the respected music academic Dr Timothy McKenry assessed the bigger picture of the controversy beyond the band’s initial motives behind thesong, in an article for the politics and culture websiteThe Conversation.
“Whether Mick Jagger, in writing‘Brown Sugar’, intended it to be racist misses the point, but touse such joyful music to accompany lyrics exploring the sexual exploitation which accompanied slavery clearly causes hurt to marginalised people.
“I would argue the ethical musician should defer to the sensibilities of the marginalised group. The cost here is the Rolling Stones won’t play‘Brown Sugar’live. This isn’t censorship; the song is readily available. It isn’t even iconoclasm – music history is not damaged and no idols have been smashed.
“The Stones’ decision to pull the song isn’t a confession of racism. It is an ethical act and, in itself, an act of artistic freedom that preserves their social license and affirms their ongoing cultural significance.”