has anyone on this board read the book 'jagger' with the silver cover?

i was curious what you all thought of it. i've never met the man, but i think it has a very mean-spirited attitude about it. i think that christensen paints jagger in the worst light through the majority of the book and makes him seem like a real bastard.

what are your thoughts on it?

I read this book back in June of 93 or whenever... it was a month before it was actually published. I picked it up at a used bookstore owned by a guy who previews books for a living. So yeah, I read it about 12 years ago and enjoyed it, although I remember it had the usual "unauthorized" bio mistakes, like the wrong names of solo albums, etc... There was another VERY similar bio of MJ that came out like the next year... called "Mick Jagger" I think, with a similar silvery spine and red lettering, with similar mistakes, and with all the same kind of "Mick is a foolish baby who cheats and cries about it" kind of dissing.

I still enjoy the bios, though... They can be fun, despite the bad research and lousy attitudes.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-23 00:47 by cirrhosis.

Pretty much every biography written about the Stones is crap for the simple reason that the authors generally dont know them personally and have to rely on second, third (or worse) hand info or if they do know them, theyve only done so for a short period in their lives and so cant therefore be expected to write a consistently good biography covering a career thats lasted so long.

Add that to the fact that most have a tabloid mentality and are very often shockingly poorly researched. They care more about sensationalism than accuracy. problem being that when you read a book thats full of glaring factual inaccuracies, then its instinctive to doubt the validity of the rest of the author's work.

There arent really any genuinely good biographies on Jagger. Christopher Sandford's book is one of the better ones.

I read it, it wasnt very good, made mick look pretty bad, and didnt focus too much on the music.

I don't agree that all the bios re. the Stones are crap. But for sure every one about Jagger is ultra crap. No one has been abl;e to get it right yet. Even Jagger himself. And I have come to realize why: he really is a bit boring, pedantic and kind of an arse. The huge contradiction is, that his work is so incredibly rewarding, intersting and timeless. It is said about several major artists that as people they were not much to write home about. Either very vain, or very boring. DeNiro comes off very boring, Wagner was a bastard.