Mick Jagger: Two cheers for an aging frontman

Mick Jagger will close out this season of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” as both host and, along with Foo Fighters and Arcade Fire, musical guest. He does so at a moment when his professional reputation is not exactly at its high water mark.

His close relationship with producer Lorne Michaels; the fact that the television network’s parent company, NBCUniversal, owns much of the Rolling Stones’ back catalog; the simple convenience of keeping a residence in New York City in preparation for activity with the Stones next year — these factors, as much as if not more than his potential to attract viewers, converged to land Mr. Jagger the “SNL” gig.

...... .....

I have a hunch that Mr. Richards is actually not much interested in writing rock songs anymore. If he had his druthers, he’d cut a figure similar to those of aging oddballs like Leonard Cohen and Tom Waits.

Instead of this, we get long periods of musical silence, punctuated by lots of unclassy sniping at Mr. Jagger.

It makes me sad to say this, but I fear it’s the truth.

Keith Richards isn’t the purist.

Lately, he’s more like a parasite.

For the complete article please see:

[www.washingtontimes.com]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-22 23:00 by bv.

Sounds like gossip to me. How can a major newspaper publish second rate material like this?

proudmary - with all due respect, your thread title is misleading.

The thread title implyies The Washington Times published: "It’s the truth - Richards is
more like a parasite"

In reality, YOU apparently are making that assertion.

This Washington Times opinion piece only says: "Keith Richards isn’t the purist. Lately,
he’s more like a parasite."

That's a substantive, material difference.

Quote
Stoneage
Sounds like gossip to me. How can a major newspaper publish second rate material like this?

(1) it's an opinion piece, and hence anyone can say whatever they wanna say and

(2) The Washington Times is a right-wing publication. They would tend to resonate more with Jagger's
politics (or presumed politics) to Keith's.

author bio: "Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for
House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times."

- swiss



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 13:08 by swiss.

No one who has contributed as much as he has contributed should ever be called a parasite; this is not a "yeah, but what have you done for me lately" situation.

Oddballs? So much name calling for no reason.

never read so much crap in my life! try to have more respect for Keith Richards!

"And he is not merely a “frontman.” Not by a long shot. Mr. Jagger is hugely underrated as a songwriter in his own right. "

Very true.

"Keith Richards isn’t the purist.Lately, he’s more like a parasite."

Total bollocks.

Awful article.

Hmmm, a strange article in every sense..the guy manages to compliment bothe Jagger and Richards and then at the same time criticise both of them, as usual he has chosen selective facts to support his fragile assumptions and doused it all with a generous helping of his own personal feelings and opinions. Appearing to jump camps in the space of the article (I wonder iff he has a ticket for SNL by any chance and a forth coming interview with Mr Jagger!) Either way, it's not something to be taken too seriously by stalwarts like us IORR's we know exaclty what Keith's input has been over the years and with a band like the Stones it's not simply who writes the song, it's as much about the partnership. If Keith had left in say 1985, the Stones would have finished as they would if Jagger had ever left. It's a partnership which is so much more than lyrics and music. If they toured again and Keith appeared on stage and barely touched his guitar he would still have the crowd in the palm of his hand, because we expect him to be there and want him to be there. The guy has paid his dues to the musical world and he owes us and the inept music journalists nothing. THey are the vampires of the music business and can only feed off the likes of Keith, they make their living out of the likes of Keith etc. If and when the Stones tour it will be cretins like this who will be scrambling around making calls to get the VIP tickets and lig out back stage, like they always have done. Pathetic journalism and not worth the paper it's spewed out on.

Pure stupidity...

He is trying to create unnecessary friction, he's got so many of the "facts" wrong and clearly shows that he's NOT a hard core fan...

Yap Yap.

Mick wrote most of Some Girls? True,if you remove Beast of Burden, Before They Make Me Run and the riff to Shattered, you don't have much left past a disco hit single, a fun country parody and several two chord neo-Pistols songs. Add in Start Me Up from the session and Keith's contributions were invaluable. As we're Mick's, of course. As for not contributing so much lately, Keith clearly lost the battle with Mick. The writer might be correct that he'd prefer a bit of Tom Waits or aging folk blues man approach, for which there is little room. Maybe if Mick would agree to front some of those songs instead of steering clear, the collaboration might prove a bit more fruitful. Mick still has an abundance of talent and drive. I wish he'd spend a bit of it on Keith's taste.

The Washington Times. That's like being lauded by Pravda or Der Angriff. You'd prefer they criticized you. With friends like that...

Quote
TeddyB1018
Mick wrote most of Some Girls? True,if you remove Beast of Burden, Before They Make Me Run and the riff to Shattered, you don't have much left past a disco hit single, a fun country parody and several two chord neo-Pistols songs. Add in Start Me Up from the session and Keith's contributions were invaluable. As we're Mick's, of course. As for not contributing so much lately, Keith clearly lost the battle with Mick. The writer might be correct that he'd prefer a bit of Tom Waits or aging folk blues man approach, for which there is little room. Maybe if Mick would agree to front some of those songs instead of steering clear, the collaboration might prove a bit more fruitful. Mick still has an abundance of talent and drive. I wish he'd spend a bit of it on Keith's taste.

The Washington Times. That's like being lauded by Pravda or Der Angriff. You'd prefer they criticized you. With friends like that...

Didn't Keith come up with the chorus for Shattered as well?

Consider the source. This is not a major paper. It's a bizarre broadsheet that was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and until 2010 was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church.

Quote
Stoneage
Sounds like gossip to me. How can a major newspaper publish second rate material like this?

The Washington Times is not a major newspaper. Far from it. It is effectively owned by the Moonies, and publishes primarily right-wing crackpots.

Great article! Thanks for sharing.

The author knows his onions.

The author , Scott Galupo, knows more about the Stones than most of the people who are criticizing him.


Q:
Uh, "Sway" and "Moonlight Mile" were both heavily influenced and co-written with Jagger by the Stone's second guitarist at the time, Mick Taylor. He got no credit for his contributions to either of the songs. Mick Taylor lives on in relative obscurity now, and in poverty.


A:

I'm not sure how heavy the influence was. While promo-ing his recent mini residency at the Iridium in NYC, Taylor specified (to my knowledge, for the first time) that his contribution to "Moonlight Mile" was the guitar riff toward the end that's answered by a string arrangement (the lead-up to Jagger belting out "Yeaahhhh I'm comin' hooome!"). It's a great part; it would've earned him a co-credit in Led Zeppelin. But the bones of the song (chords, melody, lyrics) are all Jagger.

I've thought long and hard, believe me, about how he might've helped "Sway" take shape. But again, the rudiments are Jagger's. He's playing rhythm guitar on the track, which suggests to me that he came up with the riff in the first place. (To this day, that's often an indicator of who -- Mick or Keith? -- wrote what in the Stones.) MT's solos on "Sway" are epic. On that, I imagine we're in complete agreement.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 13:52 by mitchflorida1.

wow what a spin for a title of a thread,,,

" Its the truth " where,, what is??

such gibberish, meaningless dribble supplied by this poster,,, again,, thats the truth

Swiss,

The author is a Republican so whatever he writes about Mick and Keith has got to be wrong? Now you are being emotional and silly.

Quote
mitchflorida1
Swiss,

The author is a Republican so whatever he writes about Mick and Keith has got to be wrong? Now you are being emotional and silly.

She didn't say "wrong", she said he would take sides. It's quite clear that he did...

The hatred for Keith is outrageous here.

Suggestion:
Since Keith is the object of *some people's* disdain and Mick is the love of *some people's* lives, perhaps *some people* should refrain from posting on a Rolling Stones message board and simply post on a Mick Jagger message board.

Keith Richards is, afterall, a Rolling Stone.

Just sayin'.

(Yes, the hatred is really REALLY getting to me.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 14:49 by Cocaine Eyes.

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
The hatred for Keith is outrageous here.

Suggestion:
Since Keith is the object of *some people's* disdain and Mick is the love of *some people's* lives, perhaps *some people* should refrain from posting on a Rolling Stones message board and simply post on a Mick Jagger message board.

Keith Richards is, afterall, a Rolling Stone.

Just sayin'.

(Yes, the hatred is really REALLY getting to me.)

"Some people". LOL! The good ol' Fox News-trick. It's got nothing to do with journalism

Proudmary.....I quite like your cheerleading for Mick especially when quite a lot (edit) of the rhetoric - and not just on this board - seems to be that 'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarassingly greedy adjunct............who had something once
I don't agree with that, I think as talented as Keith is if it wasn't for Mick the best he could have hoped for was the endless circle of the London club circuit.........providing he hadn't died long ago of course...........Mick understood that if you want to make a big impact you need a big show.........(with some smaller ones thrown in along the way to keep a balance).
But I've got to say I think your header is as Swiss said is misleading................(I see you've changed the bit she mentioned....personally I think the true header for that article is.........

"A Washington times reporter has an opinion.......KR is more like a parasite"

Just a thought.............



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 15:57 by EddieByword.

The only place where I may admit people bashing the stones is this forum. In the end that bitterness stems from a genuine love for the band.

This article steps beyondan the red line several times with subtle and veiled contempt and resenment.

Deeply stupid.

Quote
EddieByword
Proudmary.....I quite like your cheerleading for Mick especially when most of the rhetoric - and not just on this board - seems to be that 'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarassingly greedy adjunct............who had something once
I don't agree with that, I think as talented as Keith is if it wasn't for Mick the best he could have hoped for was the endless circle of the London club circuit.........providing he hadn't died long ago of course...........Mick understood that if you want to make a big impact you need a big show.........(with some smaller ones thrown in along the way to keep a balance).
But I've got to say I think your header is as Swiss said is misleading................(I see you've changed the bit she mentioned....personally I think the true header for that article is.........

"A Washington times reporter has an opinion.......KR is more like a parasite"

Just a thought.............

Do you really think anyone on this board has that opinion?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EddieByword
Proudmary.....I quite like your cheerleading for Mick especially when quite a lot (edit) of the rhetoric - and not just on this board - seems to be that 'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarassingly greedy adjunct............who had something once
I don't agree with that, I think as talented as Keith is if it wasn't for Mick the best he could have hoped for was the endless circle of the London club circuit.........providing he hadn't died long ago of course...........Mick understood that if you want to make a big impact you need a big show.........(with some smaller ones thrown in along the way to keep a balance).
But I've got to say I think your header is as Swiss said is misleading................(I see you've changed the bit she mentioned....personally I think the true header for that article is.........

"A Washington times reporter has an opinion.......KR is more like a parasite"

Just a thought.............

Do you really think anyone on this board has that opinion?

I've read words to that effect on this board a few times - although I don't have the inclintion to back trawl to find examples - I sure others may remember themselves - especially regarding his solo stuff - which is of course part of who he is - I think I remember one (although not who ) person claim he was lucky to have teamed up with Keith.........so........

And everyone knows it was no less than his great partner in crime Keith who coined the phrase "Dogshit in the doorway"...........



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 15:55 by EddieByword.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EddieByword
Proudmary.....I quite like your cheerleading for Mick especially when most of the rhetoric - and not just on this board - seems to be that 'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarassingly greedy adjunct............who had something once
I don't agree with that, I think as talented as Keith is if it wasn't for Mick the best he could have hoped for was the endless circle of the London club circuit.........providing he hadn't died long ago of course...........Mick understood that if you want to make a big impact you need a big show.........(with some smaller ones thrown in along the way to keep a balance).
But I've got to say I think your header is as Swiss said is misleading................(I see you've changed the bit she mentioned....personally I think the true header for that article is.........

"A Washington times reporter has an opinion.......KR is more like a parasite"

Just a thought.............

Do you really think anyone on this board has that opinion?

I've read words to that effect on this board a few times - although I don't have the inclintion to back trawl to find examples - I sure others may remember themselves - especially regarding his solo stuff - which is of course part of who he is - I think I remember one (although not who ) person claim he was lucky to have temed up with Keith.........so........

I think most of those comments are meant in a humouristic way.

Stones fans love Mick Jagger, the Stones would never be the same without him, but that doesn't mean they have to support SuperHeavy or colaborations with Will I Am etc.

And of course, Mick WAS indeed lucky to team up with Keith. That goes the other way round as well. Time has taught us that they need eachother to produce the best results.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EddieByword
Proudmary.....I quite like your cheerleading for Mick especially when most of the rhetoric - and not just on this board - seems to be that 'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarassingly greedy adjunct............who had something once
I don't agree with that, I think as talented as Keith is if it wasn't for Mick the best he could have hoped for was the endless circle of the London club circuit.........providing he hadn't died long ago of course...........Mick understood that if you want to make a big impact you need a big show.........(with some smaller ones thrown in along the way to keep a balance).
But I've got to say I think your header is as Swiss said is misleading................(I see you've changed the bit she mentioned....personally I think the true header for that article is.........

"A Washington times reporter has an opinion.......KR is more like a parasite"

Just a thought.............

Do you really think anyone on this board has that opinion?

I've read words to that effect on this board a few times - although I don't have the inclintion to back trawl to find examples - I sure others may remember themselves - especially regarding his solo stuff - which is of course part of who he is - I think I remember one (although not who ) person claim he was lucky to have temed up with Keith.........so........

I think most of those comments are meant in a humouristic way.

Stones fans love Mick Jagger, the Stones would never be the same without him, but that doesn't mean they have to support SuperHeavy or colaborations with Will I Am etc.

And of course, Mick WAS indeed lucky to team up with Keith. That goes the other way round as well. Time has taught us that they need eachother to produce the best results.

In that context I'll go with that.......but I don't think the guy I was referring to meant it like that........

And of course no-one has to support anything it's just that (for example) when the Superheavy thing happened ..well let's just say imo some people er..."over reacted - blue in the keyboard - somewhat".....imo...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 16:03 by EddieByword.

I actually happen to agree with most of this article. The writer clearly loves both of them and thinks Mick has gotten a bad rap these last few years while people continue to fall over themselves to glorify Keith (as the posts in this thread prove). Mick is the greatest frontman that ever lived and, like it or not, rock's greatest business man. Without him, we wouldn't have had nearly the amount of Stones output that we've received the last 20 years. For all his talk about "showing the blade", "Muddy painting the ceiling", "you've got the sun/moon/stars/Stones", "I haven't written my greatest riff yet" , etc. etc., it is Mick, not Keith, that has been the driving force of the Rolling Stones the last 2 decades. Even if it has only been to serve his own self interest, he's still been the one doing the majority of the "dirty work".

At least the myth of his "fall from a tree" continues to persist...like a parasite.

Where exactly does Mick get a bad rap?

Thanks for your clarification, Swiss. My critism was, of course, not aimed at Proudmary who merely linked the article but at the quality of the article. Although it was an opinion piece. Too opinionated and speculative to be published in a big newspaper. If I were the editor I wouldn't have published it.

Quote
Stoneage
Thanks for your clarification, Swiss. My critism was, of course, not aimed at Proudmary who merely linked the article but at the quality of the article. Although it was an opinion piece. Too opinionated and speculative to be published in a big newspaper. If I were the editor I wouldn't have published it.

It's not big. See info earlier in this thread.

The hatred for Mick is outrageous here.

Suggestion:
Since Mick is the object of *some people's* disdain and Keith is the love of *some people's* lives, perhaps *some people* should refrain from posting on a Rolling Stones message board and simply post on a Keith Richards message board.

Mick Jagger is, afterall, a Rolling Stone.

Just sayin'.

(Yes, the hatred is really REALLY getting to me.)

I can do it too.