This is realy a great interview, he sounds so natural.

__________________________

yes very natural, probably because there is no camera.

i love him this way.

Quote
NICOS
This is realy a great interview, he sounds so natural.

Natural, indeed, but boy, it took a long time!

thank you Massimo68 and thank you Mick

Thanks Massimo

HMN

Thanks

Really a good interview and insight, no BS and gossip.

They stick smartly to a lone topic, to an only angle in almost an hour : when ends a song, and it turns out almost philosophic

Jounalist Carlo Antonelli is excellent, he speaks a lot, but delivers much.

Wish I could get it as an mp3 to listen to on a long drive this morning.

Quote
otonneau
Yes the interviewer is SO annoying - he interrupts and prevents all sorts of interesting things being said. Sounds like a stupid postmodern guy who wants to have Mick speaking about "ongoing processes" and whatever "getting out of your bourgeois, your body, extend your perception". Perhaps he is shy and therefore overdoing it. But he seems to believe he knows what the Stones were about better than Jagger. ANNOYING! Love when he goes into one of his rants and Jagger, ever so polite, goes, "yes... that's quite obvious".

Jagger, v. interesting on soldiers from nam being reviled when going back home; the interview is clearly not following him because he cannot anticipate anything else than stupid hippy soundbites.


Jagger is cooooool!

I think you miss the point here.

Rolling Stone is at first a print, so this recorded interview is extra and row material. It is probably just on line because of the internet. You would not have get this enrichment, say 15 years ago. You would have only read the printed interview that would have been much edited. So it not too fair to pan that extra.

The journalist may be annoying, but he wants precise results - doesn't lost the target, and stick to the main idea - the deal is that Mick is "his" during 45 minutes, and the journalist fashions the interview as he wants - he could as well have Mick speaking about cricket.

So he may be annoying, but just imagine if you could listen now to, for instance, hours of Truman Capote interviews used to prepare In Cold Blood - you wouldn't stand it, but maybe you would love the book

Great point Joker. I, too, was bothered by the interviewer but at times impressed with his persistence on a specific subject (mainly Exile)--but you make a good point about how this interview wasn't meant to be heard in its entirety like this. The article would have been a great read, I imagine.

GREAT listen ... Thanks Massimo..Rollin' Stone and MICK...

Keith drivin' a Bentley in Rome .... Undercover like GOLIATH amongst the Fiats...Wild!!!



ROCKMAN

I don't think it matters really to discuss the interviewer, but I stick to my point. The journalist could have gathered more material if he had not interrupted as much as he did; furthermore, he clearly has a preconceived idea of what he wants to hear. Wanna bet that on paper, the article is gonna sound dull, with all the original stuff left out and just some standard chit chat about sixties liberation? Thank God we can listen to it online. When I read interviews from the Stones, i often sense between the lines that when Keith or Mick make a specific reference to, say, the blues, they must have talked at much greater length, but the journalist edited out the truly interesting bit and was just happy with the standard reference to the influence of afro-american music on white brits and how liberating it was. Here Jagger has a very mixed attitude towards the sixties; when the journalist, ignoring what Jagger just said, sums up his own thoughts about "the liberation, the experimentation, the freedom", Jagger rectifies: "and the naïvety!" Want to bet that's not in the final version? The journalist says "drugs, sex and rock n' roll, what we all like" - God how crass, and Jagger is clearly nonplussed. And yet, that's what he'll remember, not from having heard it but from being so sure that it MUST have been said: "Exclusive interview with the great subversive figure of the sixties-seventies".

I hope you see my point, too. You say the interviewer wants precise results. Well that's the problem. You shan't walk to do an interview knowing precisely what you want to get out of it.

Superb interview with Jagger!

Good interview. Interesting to hear he sat with Stephen Marcussen on the remastering of the back cat. Many people slated those remasters, turns out Mick had a hand or at least gave them the 'OK'. Wonder what it means for the Exile remaster...

Looking forward to hearing any kind of outtake, even if it will feature Blondie and Pierre De Beauport on percussion/overdub guitars .....

I didn't think the interviewer was annoying at all. Look at the result. A superb interview. Maybe it take someone like that to bring out the best in Jagger; to challenge him. To challenge him in conversation.In a way Jagger sounded taken aback at times; that someone would dare to interrupt him. I have never heard Jagger speak like that; not condescending at all, not brushing through a topic by joking. There was some equal footing it seemed like. Even the obvious mistake about the Beatles mixing - who cares? So he doesn't know...big deal. Jagger made a huge mistake himself (even with the books). He said that everything recorded after 69 was "Exile". But they had "Sticky Fingers" in there.

But they had "Sticky Fingers" in there.

Yeah but that were the leftovers

__________________________

i liked that the interviewer did not sit there in reverie--and jagger seemed to like it too--having a real conversation

You gotta get Mick on ya show hb ........



ROCKMAN

what a refreshing interview... hopefully a sign of more openness to come? So nice to hear him not strategically laughing questions off, or taking endless swigs from a water bottle (in fact, I think it's the interviewer--who I would guess is the editor in chief of the Italian mag, so he has a Wenner-esque ego--who gets distracted fixing drinks).

the only bad signs are: 1) the interviewer didn't really follow mick's technical discussion of the difference between remixing and remastering, which may discourage him from going on to discuss it with more able interviewers; and 2) keith is barely mentioned, the rest of the band not at all. It actually sounds as if he wants to reminisce about keith when he brings him up, but the conversation moves on.

Quote
cc
what a refreshing interview... hopefully a sign of more openness to come? So nice to hear him not strategically laughing questions off, or taking endless swigs from a water bottle (in fact, I think it's the interviewer--who I would guess is the editor in chief of the Italian mag, so he has a Wenner-esque ego--who gets distracted fixing drinks).

the only bad signs are: 1) the interviewer didn't really follow mick's technical discussion of the difference between remixing and remastering, which may discourage him from going on to discuss it with more able interviewers; and 2) keith is barely mentioned, the rest of the band not at all. It actually sounds as if he wants to reminisce about keith when he brings him up, but the conversation moves on.

Even worse it sounds like the rest of the band was not involved at all in the project.

I haven't heard Mick so expansive and engaging in an interview...well, ever. Really, really enjoyable. And it sounds like he really had fun with Exile, so different from his usual public attitude of dismissing the past. It begs the question of how involved Keith was with the project. Mick didn't even mention him. Also, if he put percussion on the "new" tracks, perhaps the rumor of Taylor doing overdubs is true...Wonder what the real title of Sophia Loren is.

Quote
71Tele
Also, if he put percussion on the "new" tracks, perhaps the rumor of Taylor doing overdubs is true...

also, if he put percussion on the tracks, how much else will they be altered? And will we be able to tell? It seems like a shame to me, but it sounds like he enjoyed doing it!

I don't get the sense that the others were involved at all. Are they ever?

Quote
ajc68
This is a fascinating interview. Unfortunately, the interviewer keeps interrupting Jagger every time he was about to say something interesting about Exile. I wonder which book Jagger picked up. I've been wanting to get one with all the recording dates, including the outtakes, etc. Any suggestions?

martin elliott's book is one suggestion:

the rolling stones complete sessions



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-02 09:31 by diane d.

Quote
diane d

Quote
ajc68
This is a fascinating interview. Unfortunately, the interviewer keeps interrupting Jagger every time he was about to say something interesting about Exile. I wonder which book Jagger picked up. I've been wanting to get one with all the recording dates, including the outtakes, etc. Any suggestions?

martin elliott's book is one suggestion:

the rolling stones complete sessions

The Felix Aeppli books (the first "Heart of Stone", the second "The Ultimate Guide") are superb. Not the cheapest but worth every cent.
Alan Clayson does a small book called "Discography", which is complete.
Now Martin Elliott did two books; the 2nd one complementing the first. It does not make many mistakes, includes unreleased tracks, but a couple facts make them hard to digest for me: the lingo tries hard to be hip and rockin but reading it from an English speaker viewpoint it over reaches it self to the point of becoming erroneous. I almost wish he had written the books in his mother language.
M.E. is obviously a huge proven Stonesfan, knows as much or more than many here. IMO he didnt need to undermine his effort like that. But that is just my opinion. I still bought both his books,

This dude who Jagger hired on; or who Jagger calls on for boot knowledge - it MUST be someone ho is known to this Stones community.

>Now Martin Elliott did two books; the 2nd one complementing the first. It does not make many mistakes, includes unreleased tracks, but a couple facts make them hard to digest for me: the lingo tries hard to be hip and rockin but reading it from an English speaker viewpoint it over reaches it self to the point of becoming erroneous. I almost wish he had written the books in his mother language.

Huh? Martin is most definitely English and wrote his books in English....

Quote
T&A
bruce doesn't have a fake accent; but he's a fake blue-collar guy....

good one

>> Martin is most definitely English and wrote his books in English <<

he seriously needs a proofreader, though

"Thank God we can listen to it online."

NO - THANK ROLLING STONE.

Quote
Gazza
>Now Martin Elliott did two books; the 2nd one complementing the first. It does not make many mistakes, includes unreleased tracks, but a couple facts make them hard to digest for me: the lingo tries hard to be hip and rockin but reading it from an English speaker viewpoint it over reaches it self to the point of becoming erroneous. I almost wish he had written the books in his mother language.

Huh? Martin is most definitely English and wrote his books in English....

I know he wrote it in English. I thought he was maybe Dutch.
Im sorry, if English is his main language, then stylistically he is terrible.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I didn't think the interviewer was annoying at all. Look at the result. A superb interview. Maybe it take someone like that to bring out the best in Jagger; to challenge him. To challenge him in conversation.In a way Jagger sounded taken aback at times; that someone would dare to interrupt him. I have never heard Jagger speak like that; not condescending at all, not brushing through a topic by joking. There was some equal footing it seemed like. Even the obvious mistake about the Beatles mixing - who cares? So he doesn't know...big deal. Jagger made a huge mistake himself (even with the books). He said that everything recorded after 69 was "Exile". But they had "Sticky Fingers" in there.

Totally agree. This was the best interview with Jagger since, oh, forever really, and the interviewer should be commended for bringing out the best in him. And the mistake about the Beatles was just that, a mistake, there's no point in crucifying the guy for it.