Interesting article from The Guardian:

[www.theguardian.com]

I wouldn't call this interesting, in fact I'm angry that I even clicked and read it.


"Mick Jagger is a Mike Love.

Johnny Ramone was a Mike Love.

Roger Waters was a Mike Love

The Mike Loves never get the credit they are due."



Dumb.

They are all money grabbers. First 10 rows VIP are from $400 to $1200 for a lot of artist. hell "Dancing With The Stars" road show are $400 each up front.

the fact jagger and co signed away a very large portion of their best work in the early part of their career for basically peanuts while working very hard in the studio creating over 200 recordings in just over a decade and over 1000 gigs in the same time period mostly in front of small crowds for a meagre gate, and then had to flee the country because they owed so much tax, that they could realistically never earn in a short time frame to pay it off, meaning they had to continue working for a long time before they could earn big money sort of entitles them to take every penny they can get now, and more. i dont grudge them a thing, they have earned it.

Quote
buttons67
the fact jagger and co signed away a very large portion of their best work in the early part of their career for basically peanuts while working very hard in the studio creating over 200 recordings in just over a decade and over 1000 gigs in the same time period mostly in front of small crowds for a meagre gate, and then had to flee the country because they owed so much tax, that they could realistically never earn in a short time frame to pay it off, meaning they had to continue working for a long time before they could earn big money sort of entitles them to take every penny they can get now, and more. i dont grudge them a thing, they have earned it.

I view the article as being positive towards Mick, and it's the view I've taken of him in recent years. Everyone gets romantic towards Keith's lifestyle, but without Mick's focus and drive, god knows where they'd be today.

Mike disagrees. Check out his Hall of fame rant

As for the tired story of a 1,000 years ago 1970-1988 Mick did business while Keith did drugs
My take: from 1989 forward (27 years! That's a whole person/ adult ago)
It took on a touring business model / corporation
Board meetings vote yes or no

Kind of a nowhere article, but I was just thinking that Mick, simply by staying in the Stones during the 70's instead of going solo, may have saved Keith's life. If the Stones had broken up then, it's not hard to imagine Keith could have lost his way even more than he did...

I'm just not sure what the point is.

I will not buy the new Mike solo album discussed in the piece. I'm sure it's mediocre to terrible. On the other hand, I never play any of Brian's solo albums, and I bought some of them. I played them once or twice, and they don't appeal to me. I sometimes hear Brian's late '90s solo song "Your Imagination" played on store Musak, and it fits right in. The Beach Boys in their entire history are not rock music. They're pop with a touch of rock, so really not a good comparison to the Stones or the Ramones.

Kind of a simplistic story. Tries to praise Mick, but the problem with saying that Mick is all business is it ignores his creative accomplishments.
...
Sidelight about the Ramones, a friend of mine says the Ramones were the most profitable act in rock because they didn't spend any money on roadies or other overhead and they sold more T-shirts than anybody else.

Quote
marianna
I'm just not sure what the point is.

I will not buy the new Mike solo album discussed in the piece. I'm sure it's mediocre to terrible. On the other hand, I never play any of Brian's solo albums, and I bought some of them. I played them once or twice, and they don't appeal to me. I sometimes hear Brian's late '90s solo song "Your Imagination" played on store Musak, and it fits right in. The Beach Boys in their entire history are not rock music. They're pop with a touch of rock, so really not a good comparison to the Stones or the Ramones.

The article relates to business acumen, rather than music styles so comparisons seem fair.
I am suprised it doesn't refer to the individual Beatles. Macca has also been critised unfairly for his business acumen, but John and George were pretty hopeless in that regard. If it wasn't for Macca, Klein might well have ended up owning chunks of Beatles/Apple.