heymisterk Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 It was really interesting. Mick has always been portrayed as the b*stard who was only about business, money, and getting laid. Keith, on the other hand, was portrayed as the bad-a$$ working-class hero who was the "heart" of the Stones. The author really doesn't dispute that. But he does say those perceptions are exaggerated. He wrote that during the height of Keith's drug addiction and his generally "laid-back" lifestyle, Mick often got saddled with a lot of the tough decisions of the group: touring, new albums, drunk/dead/prison-bound/drug-addicted members were basically dealt with by Jagger because he was the one expected to do it. The author also claims that Jagger is underrated as a musician. This part I agree with: he not only wrote the classic Stones' lyrics, but also - get this, and it's documented - wrote the riff to "Brown Sugar" and most of the music to my favorite Stones song, "Moonlight Mile". I am sure that Jagger can really be a prick, but the author makes the point that every band, to stay together, NEEDS a prick. He compared Jagger to McCartney in The Beatles' later years: a taskmaster borne out of necessity to keep the Stones...well, rolling... Thoughts...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppelinguy Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Now I'm not the biggest Stones fan but I'll give credit where it's due and both Mick and Keef should be commended for not only keeping it together all these years but keeping it interesting. Certainly in the the rock n roll press images tend to get overblown. George Harrison was hardly quiet and as Clapton once said "At times you couldn't get him to shut up!" If you haven't read Keith's autobio I strongly recommend it. Some great stories and I'm sure what he doesn't quite remember he makes up. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I'll just say two things and then stfu. 1. He's a good dancer, but a subpar singer. 2. Not sure if keeping the stones together is that great. They've been on a greatest hits tour the last thirty plus years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heymisterk Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 I'll just say two things and then stfu. 1. He's a good dancer, but a subpar singer. 2. Not sure if keeping the stones together is that great. They've been on a greatest hits tour the last thirty plus years. I really like his voice, but agree that they need to put out some new music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I think Jagger and Richards are among (if not) the most talented and prolific songwriter duo in human history. I don't care who was the bad boy and who was the good boy. Fortunately, there was enough "prick" in both of them to keep The Stones going and going. I appreciate and enjoy a great many Beatle classics, but The Stones are all at the same time past-present-future. No one really compares with them. Kind of an analogy in my mind: The Beatles are Taylors. The Stones are Gibsons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis G Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Now I'm not the biggest Stones fan but I'll give credit where it's due and both Mick and Keef should be commended for not only keeping it together all these years but keeping it interesting. Certainly in the the rock n roll press images tend to get overblown. George Harrison was hardly quiet and as Clapton once said "At times you couldn't get him to shut up!" If you haven't read Keith's autobio I strongly recommend it. Some great stories and I'm sure what he doesn't quite remember he makes up. lol I'm with you on this one. Like some Stones stuff, other stuff, not so much, but they keep it interesting. Link to latest headline: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/rolling-stones-carnegie-hall-mick-jagger_n_1347074.html?ref=entertainment&icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl16%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D143918 I've thought about reading Keith's autobio but didn't know if I'd be that interested. Have to check it out again. I'm currently reading "Fab", which is the unauthorized bio of Macca. Not very flattering!! But then again, not unexpected either, so I can appreciate the Mick/Macca comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMac Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Love em' or hate em', I would recommend that anyone interested in pop culture read "Old Gods Almost Dead" by Stephen Davis. I'm not much of a reviewer and I'm a hopeless skeptic but the 560 page book seems to be meticulously researched and loaded with interesting anecdotes. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BT Bob Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I've read Keef's autobiog and really enjoyed it. Can't wait for Mick's to eventually come out - the "compare and contrast" will be fescinating. Cards on the table - I'm a big Stones fan, and I think the comments about Jagger's voice & dancing are probably valid. He is, however (and Keef makes this point in "Life") a phenomenal blues-harp player. I also think, the thing with the Stones is that none of them are the world's best at what they do. There are better singers than Jagger, better guitarists then either Keef or Woody and better drummer than Charlie. BUT........... the whole is soe much better then the sum of the parts - and that's what counts. Jagger is, however, THE best frontman. There are very few people who can work a crowd like he does. I hope they tour again - greatest hits or not..... Personally, I could listen to Honky Tonkk Women, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice, Sympathy, et al. all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 All differing tastes aside, how can anyone that claims to "Love Rock & Roll," NOT Love The Rolling Stones??! They ARE "Rock & Roll!" Mick may not be Pavarotti, but he's well suited to their style, and like Dylan (and other's) makes it "work!" Those "Beatle" boys, will always be my #1...But, the "Stones" are a close 2nd! And, maybe even 1st, for Rock/blues rock, of the less "Heavy" variety. And, yes...Mick IS a better musician, than he gets credit for...absolutely. As much as I enjoy Ronnie...my favorite "Stones" line-up, was the original, with Brian Jones. Although, I enjoyed Mick Taylor's turn, on guitar, as well. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigzag Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 The Stones were the yang to the Beatles' yen. They were the bad boys of rock. I was just thinking this morning how much I loved their early stuff- Mother's Little Helper, Good Bye Ruby Tuesday, Under My Thumb, Wild Horses, Heart of Stone, Sympathy for the Devil, Midnight Rambler, 2000 Light Years from Home, Satisfaction, etc., etc. Great stuff. Cant' wait for Steve to opine that they are overrated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 The Mick Taylor era is some of the best rock ever produced. I don't think it had much to do with Taylor being with the band, it was just Richards in his prime as far as songwriting was concerned. I couldn't imagine any voice besides Jaggers being in the band. They should have called it quits years ago. Like when I saw them in' 81 on their farewell tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.