here is is, from the guardian here!

He is putting down what has made him worth a few hundred millions, access to unlimited rutting sex and mega-fame. Plus many wives and children

He's just speaking the truth (and "slightly intellectually undemanding" is what he actually said). Being a rock star is not a particularly cerebral line of work.

No one who has ever listened to Back to Zero can disagree with him.

"Being a rock star is intellectually undemanding"

Funny, several words came to my mind : Motley Crue Kid Rock...

Quote
CindyC
No one who has ever listened to Back to Zero can disagree with him.

No stupid man wrote Sympathy for the devil or Rocks off.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 17:37 by camper88.

It's late, but he is finally growing up...

Somewhere deep inside Mick Jagger there is still the echo of that voice telling him to Get A Proper Job...

Quote
Green Lady
Somewhere deep inside Mick Jagger there is still the echo of that voice telling him to Get A Proper Job...

No doubt. There was an interview with him a few years ago in which he says that his parents were appalled at his decision to quit school and devote himself to the band full time, and that they were absolutely right to feel that way, that it was an idiotic decision.

Quote
camper88
Can't remember who said, "Rock and Roll: Music for the neck downwards" but he said it best.

Thankfully The Rolling Stones weren't just rock and roll.

Quote
Green Lady
Somewhere deep inside Mick Jagger there is still the echo of that voice telling him to Get A Proper Job...

Yes...lol
He can't help it - that's the stock he comes from.
I see his point, because Mick was always interested in so many other kinds of things: he seemed to genuinely love study, history etc...
This is what always made Mick different than other rock stars.

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
CindyC
No one who has ever listened to Back to Zero can disagree with him.

No stupid man wrote Sympathy for the devil or Rocks off.

I 100% agree. I think Mick is VERY smart. I am saying that some of his later songs he was phoning in, not challenging himself. I think that's because it's really not that important to him the way it once was. I suppose even being a rock star gets boring if that's what you've been doing for 70% of your life.

Unfortunately the fact that he believes this now is completely supported by most of the appalling songwriting and lyrics he has offered up in the past couple of decades. This wouldn't be so disappointing if it weren't from the same artist who gave us SFTD, Let It Loose, and Sway (among many others). I think his approach now is "it's just pop music, this is good enough" whereas he used to express actual feeling and emotion. Remember that?

He spoke similarly to Rolling Stone Magazine in 1995:

ROLLING STONE: Do you ever look back at your career and evaluate what you’ve done?

JAGGER: I’m afraid of doing that. Either you have this satisfied feeling, or you say, “What a bunch of shit. What a waste of time.” You can say, “Well, it’s something I should have done for a few years and given up, done something else.”

ROLLING STONE: Does that thought cross your mind?

JAGGER: Of course. It would be nice to have another shot. Instead of me being a rock singer, I could have done something else. You hope you’ve done something right, you’ve spent an awful long time on it, so you better be bloody right. “Did you waste a lot of time?” Yes, you’ve wasted a lot of time. “Did you use your intellectual and physical gifts?” Yes and no. Because I don’t think rock & roll is as intellectually taxing as other things. It’s not particularly challenging. So you get intellectually lazy. I don’t think anyone is ever satisfied with what they’ve done.

Full inteview >>> [www.jannswenner.com]

Neil Peart could cheer Mick up...

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Green Lady
Somewhere deep inside Mick Jagger there is still the echo of that voice telling him to Get A Proper Job...

Yes...lol
He can't help it - that's the stock he comes from.
I see his point, because Mick was always interested in so many other kinds of things: he seemed to genuinely love study, history etc...
This is what always made Mick different than other rock stars.

so true... mick has always be slightly embarrassed by it i think, he seems to care a lot about social climbing and respectability. to his credit "respectable" makes fun of that.

i think there are lots of intelligent rock stars in addition to mick. keith, for example.

He can still go get his degree from the London School of Economics . I think he can afford the tuition. But, I'd rather he challenge himself in writing some brilliant songs for the stones.

Quote
CindyC
No one who has ever listened to Back to Zero can disagree with him.

Don't forget Indian Girl

Quote
71Tele
Unfortunately the fact that he believes this now is completely supported by most of the appalling songwriting and lyrics he has offered up in the past couple of decades. This wouldn't be so disappointing if it weren't from the same artist who gave us SFTD, Let It Loose, and Sway (among many others). I think his approach now is "it's just pop music, this is good enough" whereas he used to express actual feeling and emotion. Remember that?

THIS is what I was trying to say, just couldn't get the words out. Thanks for being able to read my thoughts and translate. :-)

Quote
71Tele
Unfortunately the fact that he believes this now is completely supported by most of the appalling songwriting and lyrics he has offered up in the past couple of decades. This wouldn't be so disappointing if it weren't from the same artist who gave us SFTD, Let It Loose, and Sway (among many others). I think his approach now is "it's just pop music, this is good enough" whereas he used to express actual feeling and emotion. Remember that?

Agree with a lot of what you say but not everything. "Smarter" songs are to be found in his solo work and he has amidst some dismal songwriting and lyrical output, also found ways to convey both emotional depth, personal longing, maturity, and self reflection.

On the other hand with the Stones, Jagger descends even more into the campy - I have always blamed the superlative success of the "kitchy" Some Girls for Jagger's "levity" towards pop music. As Ron Rosenbaum pointed out in the article the New York Observer in 2001, the quest for this high-low aesthete defines Jagger. To me the high-low aesthetic also defines the music of the Rolling Stones and is also why I think the legacy of the band is not understood by many rock / rock-n-roll fans.

Jagger was the first and only serious rocker to recognize the need for a "low" aesthetic in pop. That alone, for me, defines Jagger as the single most "authentic" rock musician. Jagger writes music the way he lives life. To most others, it conveys just the opposite and this "quest" for aristocracy is deemed by many to be fake.

Jagger is still a serious man who doesnt take pop music too seriously. IMO, a key factor that led to this is the success of Some Girls - for Jagger, kitchy became cool. And for better or for worse, the "low" aesthetic" has become the norm in pop music. But that is much bigger topic for another day...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-28 21:20 by wanderingspirit66.

Quote
Green Lady
Somewhere deep inside Mick Jagger there is still the echo of that voice telling him to Get A Proper Job...

LOL

Quote
CindyC

Quote
71Tele
Unfortunately the fact that he believes this now is completely supported by most of the appalling songwriting and lyrics he has offered up in the past couple of decades. This wouldn't be so disappointing if it weren't from the same artist who gave us SFTD, Let It Loose, and Sway (among many others). I think his approach now is "it's just pop music, this is good enough" whereas he used to express actual feeling and emotion. Remember that?

THIS is what I was trying to say, just couldn't get the words out. Thanks for being able to read my thoughts and translate. :-)

Sure thing Cindy!

Quote
wanderingspirit66

Quote
71Tele
Unfortunately the fact that he believes this now is completely supported by most of the appalling songwriting and lyrics he has offered up in the past couple of decades. This wouldn't be so disappointing if it weren't from the same artist who gave us SFTD, Let It Loose, and Sway (among many others). I think his approach now is "it's just pop music, this is good enough" whereas he used to express actual feeling and emotion. Remember that?

Agree with a lot of what you say but not everything. "Smarter" songs are to be found in his solo work and he has amidst some dismal songwriting and lyrical output, also found ways to convey both emotional depth, personal longing, maturity, and self reflection.

On the other hand with the Stones, Jagger descends even more into the campy - I have always blamed the superlative success of the "kitchy" Some Girls for Jagger's "levity" towards pop music. As Ron Rosenbaum pointed out in the article the New York Observer in 2001, the quest for this high-low aesthete defines Jagger. To me the high-low aesthetic also defines the music of the Rolling Stones and is also why I think the legacy of the band is not understood by many rock / rock-n-roll fans.

Jagger was the first and only serious rocker to recognize the need for a "low" aesthetic in pop. That alone, for me, defines Jagger as the single most "authentic" rock musician. Jagger writes music the way he lives life. To most others, it conveys just the opposite and this "quest" for aristocracy is deemed by many to be fake.

Jagger is still a serious man who doesnt take pop music too seriously. IMO, a key factor that led to this is the success of Some Girls - for Jagger, kitchy became cool. And for better or for worse, the "low" aesthetic" has become the norm in pop music. But that is much bigger topic for another day...

Very good points, but there is a difference between "kitchy" (as on Some Girls) and just lazy (as in "Following The River" and a million others).

I guess Philosphically, he's still trying.

I guess it has to do with expectancies. As a middle class boy doing well in school he was expected to get a degree and advance on the social ladder. Everything else was sort of a failure. Maybe accepting his knighthood was a way to recompense his father for his university drop out?

I do think he has had a lot of time between tours and records, especially since the 80's, to other more intellectually challenging things like take part in politics, writing or whatever. Maybe you can count his interest in the movie world as somewhat intellectually challening? Probably not though...

But Mick, you've been a bringer of joy to millions of people for over 50 years and have had an amazing life! Just hang with your intellectual friends when you're after more cerebral stimulation. REMEMBER ROCK N ROLL IS BASICALLY A SIMPLE PRIMAL THING.

As always, Mick's cards are on the table. Just telling us how it is.

For the OP, Jagger is quoted as saying that "being a rock singer" is intellectually undemanding, whereas "being a rock star" implies a status rather than an actual task.

He should be grateful he didn't become a schoolteacher--without the cushioning protection of fame from his music career, those underage girls would have landed him in prison well before his 25th birthday.

It's odd that Mick should be saying these things at this point. You don't hear Pete Townshend or Ray Davies reflecting on other "gratifying alternatives" they might have occupied their lives with instead of music.

Makes you think that Mick is less content than ever with The Rolling Stones and perhaps feels a bit confined at this point within the strictly oldies/nostalgia entertainment format they have become. He misses the challenge of new artistic heights toward which The Stones as a creative musical unit once aspired.

Maybe that's why he gave up acting which is probably THE most intellectually undemanding line of work I can think of. The guy who comes to suck the shit out of my Port-o-let is MUCH smarter than most actors.