Mick Jagger

By Philip Norman

Four out of Five Stars

As a matter of full disclosure, I should mention that when all is said and done, I am more of a Beatles fan than a Rolling Stones fan, although, truth be told, the difference in my interest is relatively negligible; simply, if I had to pick one over the other, I’d side with the Beatles.

The Beatles ended in 1969, although they have a lasting legacy, whereas the Rolling Stones still endure. One would assume, any rock ‘n’ roll band that has celebrated their 50^th Anniversary, would be nothing more than a nostalgic act – a shell of their former selves – not the Stones. Their image has changed, yes. Today when I think of the Stones, I think of guitarist Keith Richards as the ‘heart’ of the band, and lead singer Mick Jagger as its cold-calculating ‘Machiavellian’ leader. Reading Philip Norman’s biography of Jagger, simply titled Mick Jagger does nothing to dissuade that image.

Riding on the wave of the Beatles musical success, and London teenage boy’s fascination with American R&B’s music, the Rolling Stones came into existence, British record labels determined not to make the same mistake they made by turning down the Liverpool group. In writing about the band, Norman, who has written biographies of The Beatles (Shout: The Beatles in Their Generation) and John Lennon (John Lennon: The Life), cannot help writing about both groups and rightfully so, as it was the Beatles who gave the band their first hit, I Wanna Be Your Man, as well as their image. Realizing that Beatles manager Brian Epstein cleaned up the Fab Four to make them more palpable to Britain at the time, the Rolling Stones manager, Andrew Loog Oldham decided to market his band as the anti-Beatles, providing them with an image as dirty troublemakers that certainly didn’t help them in the more stodgy 1960’s. It’s interesting to note that the Rolling Stones image suited the Beatles more, as they lived the hedonistic life playing rock ‘n’ roll in Hamburg, Germany and what not, while the Stones never did that, but instead Jagger was a economics University major while gigging with the band and trying to make it. They didn’t get nearly as dirty as the Beatles did.

Of course, despite their early connection with the Beatles (they were all friends), the Rolling Stones soon broke out on their own and proved themselves equally exciting as songwriters and performers once Jagger and Richards found their writing footing. Norman’s book is a fascinating and fun read, because he wisely focuses on Jagger’s life from childhood, through the 1960’s and the 1970’s. This compromises about 80 percent of the biography, and truly works, as that is the most interesting time in both Jagger and the Rolling Stones life and career. Whether he reveals anything new, I don’t think so. Jagger comes across as the pompous, cold, money-driven leader of a world-class band that he’s portrayed as in numerous other biographies and books on the Rolling Stones. Add his addictive womanizing, and for the most part, he comes off as quite unlikeable – unlikeable, but truly talented. There is no questioning his abilities as both a songwriter and singer-performer, nor his place in the rock ‘n’ roll pantheon – nor the fact, that because of all this, he is a fascinating personality.

I still think if given an opportunity, I’d like to hang out with Keith Richards listening to Blues albums, but as someone interested in the history of rock ‘n’ roll, and those influential members within it, I was glad I picked up Philip Norman’s biography Mick Jagger, and would highly recommend it. And for those individuals who would pick the Rolling Stones over the Beatles, yes, I’m aware my review is highly biased in mentioning the Beatles, and I make no apologies; I expect you’ll sway your blog another way when you write about the subject, and I respect your choice in doing so – all I know, and can guarantee is that in both our vinyl and CD collections, we have albums by both groups.

Playboy...I Really Did Read the Articles

I couldn’t quite find the quote, but I remember the gist of it. Playboy founder, Hugh Hefner was addressing a gathering of Playmates and said something along the lines that if it wasn’t for them, he’d be the editor of a prestigious literary magazine. I recalled the essence of this quote with the announcement that Playboy magazine plans to move away from publishing nude photos of women—an element that for so long has defined the publication. Of course, with this announcement, the age old claim that, “I only buy it for the articles,” which everyone scoffs at, was the creative element of the magazine’s history most broadcasters clung to. It was as original as a reporter writing about Las Vegas and including the line, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,” as part of their lead paragraph. God, I hate that.

Playboy and I go back a long way – long before I was legally allowed to buy it. I remember being either 13 or 14 and standing in a variety store with my father and noticing the latest cover of the magazine, which featured Pamela Sue Martin, a dark-haired beauty who was playing Nancy Drew on TV, and eventually landed on Dynasty. I believe I asked my father about the magazine with the provocative cover featuring Pamela, and to my surprise, he bought it for me – and equally to my surprise, when we got home, my Mother wasn’t offended by the purchase.

Okay, I noticed the pictures; this was long before the Internet, so, yes, they were a revelation to me. But then something else happened – I noticed the articles. The interview in that issue was with William Colby, director of the CIA, there was an article by Carl Sagan, an artistic pictorial by Le Roy Neiman (a very distinctive and wonderful style), and much, much more. I read the magazine, and continued reading it month after month after that. Another friend of mine was also allowed to read the magazine, and we began collecting Playboy’s finding older copies at flea markets, with vendors who didn’t hesitate to sell it to minors. Surprisingly, when we were seeking out copies of the publication, our motivation wasn’t the Playmate, but the Playboy interview.  Had I found the one with the Jimmy Carter interview? How about Groucho Marx or Frank Sinatra? While my friend and I appreciated the Centerfold and the various pictorials, what drove our interest was the wealth and diversity of the articles. At 13 and 14, I was reading articles by F. Lee Bailey, Norman Mailer, Joyce Carol Oates, Stephen King, James Michener and many, many more. I was reading about social issues, politics, profiles, and some truly excellent fiction.

“I only read it for the articles.”  It may sound lame, but in many ways it was true. You see, if you’re interested in just looking at naked ladies, Playboy isn’t the magazine for you. You have the Centerfold, and before it you might have one pictorial and possibly a smaller one, and after it the same. If you count the many pages published and how many of them are of nudes, I believe you’d discover that 90 percent of the magazine was articles. If seeing naked women was your desire, there were many other magazines out there where the percentage skewed in the other direction, although many of those nudes lacked the artistic nature of the Playboy photo nude.

With the Internet making nudes available, as well as access to pornography, the power of the Playboy nude has waned over the decades. I will not miss the Playboy nude, but I will miss the Playboy of old. I haven’t read Playboy for quite some time. I suspect that due to changing times, and shorter attention spans with today’s young adults, the magazine has adapted and shortened everything. What was once the greatest in-depth interview available out there, with a diverse group of individuals, whether entertainers, politicians, business leaders, or more, has turned into a quick, uninspired interview that no longer holds the stature it once did. You can find books that are compilations of Playboy interviews, and I suggest if you do, you buy them and enjoy the beauty of those interviews, and how they didn’t shy away from addressing topical issues, like racism and the Civil Rights Movement with Frank Sinatra and John Wayne, or World War II and the holocaust with an in-depth interview with Albert Speer.

 

I remember reading an article in one of the magazine’s anniversary issues that I still believe is brilliant. The author wrote an article about writers and authors and went around to famous authors of today and those of yesteryear and asked for a copy of the blank page on pads of paper they would be writing on next, or would have been writing on next. The article was about the blank page, and the possibility of the blank page and what it could represent if it had of been used by the creative mind who owned that pad. It was amazing and strangely compelling.

I applaud Playboy’s move to walk away from the nude, but I implore its editors to look to the past and see what set it apart from other men’s magazines. I believe it would be best for them to move in that direction with the quality of their articles, rather than seeing themselves fall more towards the type of articles we can find in FHM or Maxim magazine. If they can recapture some of that past glory, as well as cultivate the quality of contributors that they once did, maybe Hugh Hefner can stand proudly in front of a crowd and announce that finally he is being recognized for being the publisher of a first-class literary magazine. At least that is my hope.