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.