Quote
Title5Take1
I read chunks of the Philip Norman book and skimmed the rest (it was a library book). The new Chrissie comments were interesting, but the rest was pretty dull and stuff I already knew. I hate when Stones/Beatles biographers rerun stuff, but try to make the old-hat stuff "new" by adding their own dopey extra verbiage. .

Yes! That's what it is...I know this stuff already and by adding his own theories...well, hell - I could write a book about the Stones too.
Some of this stuff might be new to some, but through the years, the stories have been recycled so many times that we don't even know the true sources....

proudmary, re my use of the word "dense," the writing was thick, hard to penetrate. It did not have a "graceful rhythm" or "liveliness" about it.

"When Keith was sent to Wormwood Scrubs he was not happy at all. He wore a frown that was probably a deeper frown than the frowns he wore playing Jimmy Reed's gloomy song Honest I Do at the Crawdaddy Club."

I guess Mr Norman could have really shamed himself if he'd have
tried to shame Keith about how he looked whilst perfoming Jimmy Reed's Shame Shame Shame



ROCKMAN

Yeah, rockie, Norman must have been half asleep when he wrote such a dorky sentence!

Great review, thanks for posting.

I actually made up that "frown" sentence as sort of an exaggerated comical example of Norman's elastic, pompous writing. I don't actually think any of his sentences are quite that bad! But a lot of them ain't much worse.

I actually made up that "frown" sentence

.........AHHHHHHHHH now ya tell me .... thought it was pretty bad ...



ROCKMAN

Mick Jagger, By Phillip Norman
This epic life evokes a balance-reading tycoon – a canny survivor, never a street-fighting man

Among the big names signed up by America's magazines to cover the 1972 Rolling Stones tour was Truman Capote, waspish author of Breakfast at Tiffany's and In Cold Blood. A man equally at home with famous friends and scruffy associates, he should have got on well with Mick Jagger, the Dartford-born son of a PE teacher who, as the world's most notorious rock titan, dined with earls and princes. But they didn't hit it off.

Nonetheless, Capote joined the tour and, from his privileged position on the band's private plane and in the wings at 80,000-strong shows, loftily inspected the singer. He is, concluded Capote, "a scared little boy, very much off his turf… Mick has no talent save for a kind of fly-eyed wonder… He could, I suppose, be a businessman. He has that facility of being able to focus in on the receipts in the midst of 'Midnight Rambler' while he's beating away with that whip."

Poor Mick. He's 70 next July, and has five decades being adored and found wanting in equal measure. For 10 years, from 1962 to 1972, he rose to a stardom never before seen in showbiz: the posturing, narcissistic, androgynous rock star/ sex god/ dance king. Since 1973, he has mostly been regarded as a canny, tight-fisted franchise-manipulator, exploiting past glories.

Philip Norman, in this long but hugely readable biography, gives us both incarnations but is keen to confront received opinions. He reveals that young Mick, rather than a randy, rebellious extrovert, was shy and slow to show affection. He was fastidious (he hated being pushed in the mud during rugby) and good at staying out of trouble - a credit to his middle-class parents and their insistence on strict routine. But his report said he was "easily distracted". Norman gives us the distractions: a guitar, bought by his mother on a Spanish holiday; his first pop concert (Woolwich, 1958, Buddy Holly); a gold-flecked jacket; an early TV appearance (demonstrating tent erection). Bit by bit, the elements of the future star accrete.

Norman's earlier group biography, The Stones (1983), often gave the impression he disapproved of Jagger. In this new work, he radiates sympathy for the old devil. We learn that everyone thought young Mick was too ugly to succeed, that his voice was "too black" for the BBC, that Marianne Faithfull's first impression was "a cheeky little yob."

As he re-tells the highlights of the Sixties years -- the 1967 drugs bust, the death of Brian Jones, the conquest of America, the violence at Altamont – he always takes Mick's side. He offers a fresh perspective on Altamont Speedway, where Hell's Angels killed a young black man while Jagger sang "Under My Thumb". Norman explains that it was a dangerous event, with the stage crammed with Angels, and Jagger was brave to keep going before grabbing a helicopter out of the redneck Armageddon. Of the drugs bust he reveals that "Acid King" Dave Snyderman, the drug-dealer at the house, had been set up by MI5 to infiltrate the Stones's inner circle.

Mick's relations with women were more anguished than advertised: he wept over Chrissie Shrimpton; he and Marianne ceased sexual relations after six months; his marriage to Bianca Jagger was on the rocks inside a year. And though Mick entertained scores of interchangeable blondes at his Cheyne Walk love nest, he seems to have preferred a friendly bunk up with one of his female staff.

Norman is shrewd about Jagger's fascination with money. He emphasises his intellectual interest in the stuff. Andrew Loog Oldham's accountant's father-in-law was startled to be asked by the 20-year-old Mick what he thought the pound would be worth on the currency market in a few years' time. Jagger comes across as a cautious, diffident, old-fashioned Englishman with "an insatiable thirst for social status". Leaving a trail of broken hearts and suicide bids in his wake, he body-swerved trouble and forgot calamities. While band mates smoked, snorted, shot up and swallowed every drug available, Jagger practised moderation. "Even LSD gave up in despair after finding no inner demons".

The only force to which he was in thrall was the requirement to be a rock star. "I was a victim of cool, of the tyranny of hip," Jagger said. It made him abandon "kind, thoughtful, generous and chivalrous" impulsesand behave like a cad. After fathering a baby with Marsha Hunt, he responded to her request for a trust fund by making it a condition that she sign a document saying he wasn't the father. It's a shocking story of how rock divinity can't co-exist with human decency.

Norman offers some marvellous details of clashing cultures: Marianne, invited with Mick to a fancy dinner at Warwick Castle, taking five Mandrax as an hors d'oeuvre and falling asleep in the soup; Tom Driberg making overtures to see if Mick (aged 25) would consider standing for Parliament. He reveals that a favourite Jagger seduction line (usually employed in the back of a limo) was "Do you like waking up in the country or the city?"

Norman sometimes overdoes his special pleading. I lost track of the number of times a newcomer arrives on Planet Jagger expected to meet a snarling degenerate and instead encounters a charming, cricket-loving English gent. I also worried that Norman tends to see sex everywhere in the songs: "Satisfaction" is apparently "a hymn to masturbation" with the first-ever reference in a song to menstruation ("Baby, better come back, maybe next week") Hello? And he overdoes the Mars Bar gags.

But otherwise his book is a nicely sardonic history of the maddest decade in the last 100 years, and a fascinating study of an invented rebel who re-invented himself as a self-controlled conformist. Of all the pungent quotations, my favourite is from Keith Richards, mulling over the difference between him and his fellow Glimmer Twin: "Mick likes knowing what he's going to do tomorrow. Me, I'm just happy to wake up and see who's around. Mick's rock; I'm roll."
[www.independent.co.uk]

Quote
proudmary
"Andrew Loog Oldham's accountant's father-in-law was startled to be asked by the 20-year-old Mick what he thought the pound would be worth on the currency market in a few years' time."

In a FORBES cover story (Mick and Keith on the cover) a while back CBS Records chief Walter Yetnikoff said, "Mick was very astute. In his head he figured out what the French royalty would be on a record, doing the conversion and taking off the VAT tax. I can't do that without my royalty guide."

Whole cover story >>> [www.forbes.com]

Title5Take1

I am VERY disappointed in you...although at least you FINALLY owed up to inventing that "dorky sentence."

I have an excellent memory by inheritance, and that sentence you wrote did not ring a bell for me when I read Norman's book. Stil, I am shocked that you would present "that" sentence as truth to begin with. You would not want someone to do that to YOU.

Writing is hard work, and Norman is a respected writer for many, but not all, of his books and certainly his work as a reporter for The Times. I respected his book "Shout" and particularly his very fine book on his childhood on the Isle of Wight.

I have been writing professionally since I was 17 years old, and there are many diverse authors whom I greatly respect. But I do want to say that I feel if one writes a "serious" biography of another human being then they owe the very best work to the reader. And if the subject is someone that would not cooperate with the book I would NEVER write it.

Norman has met and talked with Jagger in the somewhat distant past; he is not a celebrity-hound a la Christopher Andersen.

Because Norman's book on John Lennon, whom he did know fairly well, was a success, the publisher was eager to get him to do the Jagger book. I heard about this some time ago and hoped that he would not do the book without at least one lengthy conversation with Mick. But agents and publishers are good at twisting the author's arm and making them feel they "owe it to humanity."

Personally, I felt this book strongly lacked a good sense of Mick in the last ten years, because Norman was not able to get Jagger's cooperation.

But, as I have said before, many younger fans who were not around for the Sixties and Seventies, will like this book.

Quote
stonesrule
Title5Take1

I am VERY disappointed in you...although at least you FINALLY owed up to inventing that "dorky sentence."

I have an excellent memory by inheritance, and that sentence you wrote did not ring a bell for me when I read Norman's book. Stil, I am shocked that you would present "that" sentence as truth to begin with. You would not want someone to do that to YOU.

I feel like Ron Wood at the hands of Mick Taylor lovers.

I thought everyone would assume the "frown" sentence was fake. I figured I wrote it ridiculous enough that would be self-evident. (But at the same time, I'm not sure if you're ribbing me above or are serious.) Anyway, in case you're serious above, I did take the "precaution" of writing the sentence about Keith. The subject was more Mick/Beatles, so I wrote about Keith thinking that added "distance" would suggest further it was a fake sentence. Sorry for the inadvertent solecism, as I didn't intend to mislead at all. But I guess if lots of people think (and they do) the Animals' HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN is the Rolling Stones, then one spoof sentence has a good chance of flying "under the radar"—so to speak—too.

I loved Norman's SHOUT. I've even reread bits of it. But I ended up flipping through his Lennon biography, thinking it stank. His theory that John Lennon was homosexually in love with Paul McCartney was absurd. With tenuous evidence, to say the least.

........ I don't care Title5 ....don't lose any sleep over it....



ROCKMAN

Title5, at least I didn't say that you deserved to be spanked!

.....OH DEAR!!! don't suggest that ....



ROCKMAN

Review: New bio paints Mick Jagger as a contradictory enigma

Read more: [www.digitaljournal.com]

Thanks Proudmary. I really appreciate your effort here.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Thanks Proudmary. I really appreciate your effort here.

- Doxa

Thank you very much, Doxa
I like it when everything is organized and available in one place - when I was a kid I wanted to be a librarian
But what do you think of this slow but apparent revival of interest in Jagger? You think Life influenced that or some other factors?

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa
Thanks Proudmary. I really appreciate your effort here.

- Doxa

Thank you very much, Doxa
I like it when everything is organized and available in one place - when I was a kid I wanted to be a librarian
But what do you think of this slow but apparent revival of interest in Jagger? You think Life influenced that or some other factors?

That's a good question. I think as long as I remember, since becoming a fan in the early 80's, I've never seen so much good publicity for Jagger than during a year or so. Don't know how much LIFE affected to that - surely nothing to at all if we think of "Move Like Jagger", "Swagger Jagger", etc, but still I think that book didn't harm at all to his public image in the end. And I think it motivated at least partly the new biographies of him to be written, at least partly to defend him. The 'todgergate' was so stupid, that it only made Richards look worse. Also Jagger's own doings - the Grammy, White House, SNL performances, and altogether his vital presence wherever he appears might - have a role there. Besides, there haven't been any real moralistic scandals since Jerry Hall days, no one cares about the knighthood 'scandal' any longer.

But I think what is most remarkable that Jagger's significance, and his contributions to The Rolling Stones, had been recognized during the recent years better by Rolling Stones hardcore fans. For example, the atmosphere here in IORR has changed quite a lot (compared what it was, say, ten years ago). And at the same the blind Keith Richards worshsip has decreased quite a lot. There was a time almost no critical word of Richards were said here, and now that is a constant theme. I think that is healthy (if it doesn't go too extreme, what it sometimes feels like it is).

I think some of that is to do that Jagger and his status has always taken for granted. So granted that he has been so easy target to blame anything - distant, greedy opportunist - while Richards's has been like a down-to-earth "elder brother" of us all, like Spitz said of him, many fans easy to feel connected to. And this is very much tight to the understanding their artistic contribution. Maybe LIFE caused some of hardcore fans to realize that 'enough is enough', even Jagger criticism. It is time to 'defend' the guy and see his true importance. Perhaps some of us have been also grown a bit, and to see through the myths and standard interpretations made by 'critical' rock press (to whom Richards has always been a darling boy, and Jagger an enemy). It is not the 70's or 80's anymore, even though Richards made his best in his book to put us back there.

I guess it should be obvious that I also am one example of a fan changing an opinion, and doing some self-reflection here.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-04 13:13 by Doxa.

Besides if we look the very recent 'money-scandal' over the London/New Jersey shows, Jagger is not defending or explaining anything (but still admitting the big prices), while Richards and Wood come up with so moronic remarks and excuses, that they most obviously assume their fans are total idiots. Ironically, Jagger has not such a an image to maintan - or lose - he should have to be hypocritical.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-04 13:01 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa
Thanks Proudmary. I really appreciate your effort here.

- Doxa

Thank you very much, Doxa
I like it when everything is organized and available in one place - when I was a kid I wanted to be a librarian
But what do you think of this slow but apparent revival of interest in Jagger? You think Life influenced that or some other factors?

That's a good question. I think as long as I remember, since becoming a fan in the early 80's, I've never seen so much good publicity for Jagger than during a year or so. Don't know how much LIFE affected to that - surely nothing to at all if we think of "Move Like Jagger", "Swagger Jagger", etc, but still I think that book didn't harm at all to his public image in the end. And I think it motivated at least partly the new biographies of him to be written, at least partly to defend him. The 'todgergate' was so stupid, that it only made Richards look worse. Also Jagger's own doings - the Grammy, White House, SNL performances, and altogether his vital presence wherever he appears might - have a role there. Besides, there haven't been any real moralistic scandals since Jerry Hall days, no one cares about the knighthood 'scandal' any longer.

But I think what is most remarkable that Jagger's significance, and his contributions to The Rolling Stones, had been recognized during the recent years better by Rolling Stones hardcore fans. For example, the atmosphere here in IORR has changed quite a lot (compared what it was, say, ten years ago). And at the same the blind Keith Richards worshsip has decreased quite a lot. There was a time almost no critical word of Richards were said here, and now that is a constant theme. I think that is healthy (if it doesn't go too extreme, what it sometimes feels like it is).

I think some of that is to do that Jagger and his status has always taken for granted. So granted that he has been so easy target to blame anything - distant, greedy opportunist - while Richards's has been like a down-to-earth "elder brother" of us all, like Spitz said of him, many fans easy to feel connected to. And this is very much tight to the understanding their artistic contribution. Maybe LIFE caused some of hardcore fans to realize that 'enough is enough', even Jagger criticism. It is time to 'defend' the guy and see his true importance. Perhaps some of us have been also grown a bit, and to see through the myths and standard interpretations made by 'critical' rock press (to whom Richards has always been a darling boy, and Jagger an enemy). It is not the 70's or 80's anymore, even though Richards made his best in his book to put us back there.

I guess it should be obvious that I also am one example of a fan changing an opinion, and doing some self-reflection here.

- Doxa

I am reading Norman's book now and one of the things that strikes me about both Mick and Keith is how much they both hide behind their images. Norman overuses his phrase "tyranny of cool" in describing the difference between the public Jagger and private Jagger, but there is much truth there. Mick chooses to hide his true self by not saying much of anything or affecting a "who gives a damn" attitude. Keith, despite his 500 pages plus book, doesn't really tell us who he is either. For instance, in Norman's book, Chrissie Shrimpton says Keith was very upset about his parent's divorce, which Keith shrugs off completely in Life. It's a small thing, but, it's an example of how much we don't know what either of these men are really like, despite everything that's been written about them, even Keith's 500 plus page autobiography.
I'll write more when I have finished Norman's biography.

....kinda like Clark Kent would ya say bloomer????



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
....kinda like Clark Kent would ya say bloomer????

...yes, Rockeee, and perfectly understandable, which honestly just makes me love them both even more. They both have screwed up, been hurt, acted like idiots, and then tried to pretend like it's no big deal. Kind of like the rest of us...

and then tried to pretend like it's no big deal. Kind of like the rest of us.......heck yeah it's a part of life









ROCKMAN

There is an undeniable element of identification with the underdog in Anglo-Saxon/ European culture ( btw not the case with us, Russians, we love the winners). That was the source of love for Richards
But the criticism and antipathy to Jagger reached a critical point beyond which he became the underdog (as paradoxical as it may sound) and sympathy turned to his direction.
When I say Life helped reassess the role of Jagger, I mean that Richards criticism toward Mick seems excessive and sometimes inappropriate - as you said 'enough is enough'
and second, Keith opened himself too much - and it become clear that he is not a knight in shining armor or "the coolest cat on Earth"
Still this re-evaluation only happens among hardcore fans and rock critics. Let's say this passage( from the CH review in Uncut) was not possible a few years ago
 "...For so long it seems like Jagger has been the less-preferred Stone: it’s always been about Keith, who continues to embody the piratical spirit of the band, while Jagger has been reductively painted as a micromanaging whip-cracker. But this will remind you of Jagger at his best. He is the one who makes the most sense of this colourful, chaotic narrative. And going back to the abundance of live material here, you can’t help but notice how he's grown into the role of frontman as the size of the venues increases. “You can’t be young forever," he says poignantly at the close of Crossfire Hurricane, 38 years old as the film ends."

Mainstream media is a different story. This is from the review on one more Jagger book - Eminent Elizabethans: Rupert Murdoch, Prince Charles, Margaret Thatcher and Mick Jagger by Piers Brendon

"It is hard to see Jagger as anything other than a comic figure. According to his mother, “his main ambition was to be rich” and he is portrayed here as a suburban social-climber with “child-bearing lips” for whom “the most important instrument was his electric calculator”.

Quote
proudmary
There is an undeniable element of identification with the underdog in Anglo-Saxon/ European culture ( btw not the case with us, Russians, we love the winners). That was the source of love for Richards
But the criticism and antipathy to Jagger reached a critical point beyond which he became the underdog (as paradoxical as it may sound) and sympathy turned to his direction.
When I say Life helped reassess the role of Jagger, I mean that Richards criticism toward Mick seems excessive and sometimes inappropriate - as you said 'enough is enough'
and second, Keith opened himself too much - and it become clear that he is not a knight in shining armor or "the coolest cat on Earth"
Still this re-evaluation only happens among hardcore fans and rock critics. Let's say this passage( from the CH review in Uncut) was not possible a few years ago
 "...For so long it seems like Jagger has been the less-preferred Stone: it’s always been about Keith, who continues to embody the piratical spirit of the band, while Jagger has been reductively painted as a micromanaging whip-cracker. But this will remind you of Jagger at his best. He is the one who makes the most sense of this colourful, chaotic narrative. And going back to the abundance of live material here, you can’t help but notice how he's grown into the role of frontman as the size of the venues increases. “You can’t be young forever," he says poignantly at the close of Crossfire Hurricane, 38 years old as the film ends."

Mainstream media is a different story. This is from the review on one more Jagger book - Eminent Elizabethans: Rupert Murdoch, Prince Charles, Margaret Thatcher and Mick Jagger by Piers Brendon

"It is hard to see Jagger as anything other than a comic figure. According to his mother, “his main ambition was to be rich” and he is portrayed here as a suburban social-climber with “child-bearing lips” for whom “the most important instrument was his electric calculator”.

Mick's mother sounds like a cold fish, but it's hard to say how accurate that quote is. As for Keith opening himself up to much, that is the fascinating thing about his book, he was at once too open and at the same time didn't really tell us much of anything. At times, Richards is the definition of that phrase, "open mouth, insert foot." I still think he made a brave attempt in some parts of the book, but he has come out of it somewhat diminished amoung hard-core fans and rock critics, as you say. I do wish Jagger would try to do the same and write his own story, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Anyway, I don't always agree, but I get what you are saying proudmary and I admire and appreciate your meticulous efforts to shine a light (pun intended) on who these guys really are. You would have made a very good librarian! For me, when all is said and done, I choose to focus on the essential decency of both men. Now I'm sure I'm going to get crap about the ticket prices with that comment.

Quote
Rockman
and then tried to pretend like it's no big deal. Kind of like the rest of us.......heck yeah it's a part of life

Thanks Rockeee, love that one.

Mick's mother had a great influence on him, and he loved her and his father and brother and always had a good relationship with them no matter what was going on in the lurid newspaper accounts. Think Norman was offbase on his description of Mrs. Jagger, whom I had the pleasure of meeting.

I think LateBloomer and ProudMary made some good points generally.

Also I think Jane Rose has had a lot to do with Keith's "image." For good and for bad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-04 21:15 by stonesrule.

If I were Mick I would not have accepted the knighthood because of what happened with the Readlands busy I could never put that behind me but that is me. Mock I don't think has ever really been a rebel I think he is dedicated to music though sometimes he comes off as phony because he does want everything to be on schedule and done in a business type way. Mick is an enigma I don't know what to think of him.

Quote
proudmary
"For 10 years, from 1962 to 1972, he rose to a stardom never before seen in showbiz: the posturing, narcissistic, androgynous rock star." The Independent

I actually don't think Mick is that narcissistic. Ahmet Ertegün said Mick's attention to the audience is the same charming attention he gives you in conversation. That he's a great performer for the same reason he's a charming conversationalist: he's actually not focussing on himself that much. Mick does seem to study audiences more closely than most performers, the way I've noticed he sometimes closely studies the faces of TV interviewers interviewing him. And narcissists tend not to be in bands; they tend to be solo acts from the start, not wanting to share the spotlight at all. And Mick doesn't do things like, say, Obama, who named his dog "Bo" because it's his initials.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-12 15:22 by Title5Take1.

Quote
slew
Show him the blade is kind of funny actually. It fits his image. Did he ever really show anyone the blade though? I mean really he is a skinny little runt that most people if he showed them the blade they'd disarm him and kick his arse if he was not Keith Richards!

Funny!!!