IMO, he used to be an artist first, and businessman second.
Now it's the other way around, I suppose. When did it change....?

I thing the question is totally....wrong.

Quote
Happy24
I thing the question is totally....wrong.

No, it's spot on and I would say the answer is much earlier than we'd like to think. The early '70s, "Goats Head Soup" era when Klein was gone and Keith was out of it.

Artissman

Equal share of both. You wouldn't put the effort in that Jagger does if you weren't an artist. And the Stones wouldn't be where they are today with out his business acumen.....

If he was a business man first, he would rather earn money in a different way - like buying rights to the Beatles' songs or even his own old ones (I know both is impossible) and making money on that. Or even releasing the the unreleased material from the vaults as many have asked here before. That would bring a lot of money without any effort. Or just simply do the stupid things RS.com does. That is business for me.
Okay they don't put out a new record each year as they used to and the tours are a good bussines of course and the tickets are expensive...bla bla bla, but with such big artists (doesn't matter if it is Mick or Macca or whoever) I think it is stupid to say that business comes first. They are big business men, but they are some of the biggest artists of the last 100 years. This art-business dicussion is very unfortunate.
I don't know how much are people here familar with history of visual art, but many people (including me) think hat Michelangelo was the biggest artist ever . If you study his life, you realise that he constatly complained about how little money he had. In fact when he died he was one of the richest artists ever (rich even comared to the Stones). And will somebody dare to say that he was a businessman first? No reasonable person would do that. Think about it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-03 14:48 by Happy24.

mick is all about the greenbacks

Quote
ablett
Equal share of both. You wouldn't put the effort in that Jagger does if you weren't an artist. And the Stones wouldn't be where they are today with out his business acumen.....

I agree. I hate the simplistic character stereotypes indulged in by the media and, to an extent, posters on this board. Of course, he likes to make money and many of the business decisions taken by and on behalf of the band are geared to making more of it. But if it really was "all about the greenbacks" he would not be touring today. Believe you me, with the money he has behind him, there are much easier ways to do business in your 60's (and indeeed, your 30's, 40's and 50's!) No one in their right minds would have chosen to be in an R&B group in the early 60's if their motivation was fame and fortune. The choice to be a musician (I believe this remains his described profession on official documents) was initially artistically motivated and must remain a big part of the equation even today.

Artist. As a businessman he is very, very good, as an artist he is exceptional.

Quote
Ringo
Artist. As a businessman he is very, very good, as an artist he is exceptional.

Definitely. His heart is in the art. He just happens to be a naturally astute businessman too.

Quote
Ringo
Artist. As a businessman he is very, very good, as an artist he is exceptional.

No he isn't. As the Rolling Stones front man he's exceptional. As a songwriting/musical artist? Please. His songwriting "inspiration" for the last three decades has consisted of boning fashion models and hanging out at chi-chi nightclubs.

The art of the DEAL is Mick's muse.

"boning fashion models and hanging out at chi-chi nightclubs."

Do you write for Hello magazine?

He is an Artistic Businessman 90/10% in the beginning and 10/90% at the end

__________________________

If you've listened to SAL CD you hear the artist.

The Stones would have been finished long ago if, after being cheated, screwed, lied to etc, if someone hadn't said, "Enough of this." Mick didn't seek to be a businessman for his group. The only way the Stones survived is because he rose to the challenge when no one else in the band did.

I read once that Grace Slick recalled flying to London to meet Mick before the free Altamont gig. She was apprehensive thinking that Mick was the crown Prince of British hedonism and what to expect meeting him. When she got to Mick's place he greeted her wearing a business suit and served tea and finger food and talked endlessly about. . . business!

Mick talked all about the tour, ticketing, marketing, product, etc., etc. etc.. Business, business, business and nothing but business. Grace Slick recalled that that was all Mick talked about, the business of touring, and nothing else.

There was no talk about the Vietnam war, class struggle-street fighting man, going down to the demonstration.

There was only business to be attended to.

How wonderful to be great at two different things. I bet he's pretty darn sensational in a couple of other areas, but....

who the @#$%& is mick jagger? ;-)

They've all got enough money not to worry about business [even Ronnie these days]. The difference is that Mick's into it. Always has been...so he takes care of it. The other's don't really care so long as the money comes in and are happy to let him.
I don't see anything sinister in that.
It must be said however that business considerations play a huge part in the determination of what the band do, when and how they do it.
Would their recording and touring activities over the last 20 years have been any different without Mick's business bias ?
Probably...but whether it would have been for the better is just conjecture.

The reason why Mick got involved was almost certainly down to the fact that he couldn't trust anyone else. Having been (allegedly) scammed by, in chronological order:
1. Eric Easton
2. ALO
3. Decca Records
4. A. Klein and ABCKO
IS IT ANY WONDER HE TOOK OVER THE REINS?
What's suprising is it took so long (late 60's) for the penny to drop.

Their approach to taxation is their personal choice - I don't think (even in the 1960's) they ever showed any pretentions of being Socialists and of course with tax rates at very high levels they took the well trodden step of exile/ non dom status.. to protect their wealth (which on paper was quite considerable even in 1971...to say they were broke then is just a joke).
John Lennon was quite content with Epstein diverting monies off shore in the 60's - everybody has been at it since time immemorial.
PS Just a thought- does anyone know Mick's current tax status- official resident in Mustique or France ? (the latter is hardly low tax). Can he remain in the UK longer than 90 days, for example as Bill and Charlie can

Quote
largelingerie
How wonderful to be great at two different things. I bet he's pretty darn sensational in a couple of other areas, but....

Yes. Being good at business is not a bad thing. So many artists get ripped-off, the Stones included.

artist first because if he were not that he would have no need to be a businessman, he would not be mick jagger of the rolling stones if it were not for his art