I saw Larry Hill of the Guardian say:
The Rolling Stones formed between the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis. Around the time baby boom kids’ fear of the Cold War was getting in the way of spending their baby boom allowance. I too was conceived and born in this gap between being scared to death of utter nuclear annihilation and not giving a fuck. After this generational shift in consciousness, posture and pose were indistinguishable and interchangeable. The Stone’s entire catalog backs this up, from their empty fascination with American blues to their bland late offerings. Aside from their bad boy portrayals in the media they never really pandered to hippies’ false hopes or stepped on anyone’s toes and never really took a side. Because of this there couldn’t have been a better neutral representation of Western music to open Cuba: once dominant now ineffectual, once muscular now atrophied, once read dangerous and disruptive now read quaintly harmless, once in the moment now unknowingly out of date–living out the fate of any revolution.
There are of course left and also right wing critiques of the fact that the Stones played Cuba. But what about this critique of them? I mean, I think I know these things already and did not expect more, and am not as upset therefore. But what do you think?