Have you seen my cell phone, baby ... (laying around in Berlin)?

[dadagoboi]

Jagger is who he  is because of a lot of hard work.  When he did his Solomon Burke tribute at the Grammys a few years ago he practiced for two weeks on a replica stage with the exact dimensions as the real one to make sure everything was going to go exactly to plan. You won't see him falling off a stage.

I don't blame him at all for not suffering fools.  John Lennon didn't either, he could be a vicious SOB completely unprovoked.  It's well documented.

[uwe]

As witty and charming as Uwe thinks his long lost countryman Jagger is, he is not naturally so and has to turn it on.

An old high school bud found Jagger one night at his local when he was working at a hostel in a small resort town in Bristish Columbia.  Being wasted already himself, he said something stupid like "Dude, you could totally have any girl in here' to which Old Mick replied "do you think I need you to tell me that?"  Not peak form, though me bud walked into that one.

I think the reply was rather apt and pretty high on the coolometer. It's along the lines of Jagger's other classic repartees:


"Do I look like I had a facelift?"

(Answer to a journo's question whether he had had a facelift. Another journo wrote "Jagger gave his answer with the grace of an old wrinkled iguana.")

"Bill, if you make a fool of yourself, there is no need to apologize to me."

(Answer to Wyman's apolgy for having claimed in his memoirs that he "had more girls than Mick".)

I'm neither a Jagger nor a Stones fan - I appreciate them for their longevity and believe that Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Black & Blue, Some Girls and Vodoo Lounge are five worthy albums (yup, no Exile, I find that album boring, jammy and uninspired!), otherwise the Stones are more of a singles band to me. They have certainly had their share of misses.

"Long lost countryman Jagger" - huh  , does he have German roots? I didn't know.

[gweimer]

I'm neither a Jagger nor a Stones fan - I appreciate them for their longevity and believe that Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Black & Blue, Some Girls and Vodoo Lounge are five worthy albums (yup, no Exile, I find that album boring, jammy and uninspired!), otherwise the Stones are more of a singles band to me. They have certainly had their share of misses.

I love this place!   I did also like Goat's Head Soup, however.   

[OldManC]

I don't blame him at all for not suffering fools.  John Lennon didn't either, he could be a vicious SOB completely unprovoked.  It's well documented.

I love that fact about both of them. For the few rock stars I've met over the years, the ones that came across as real people (nice or otherwise) are the ones that left a lasting impression. The others just seemed like actors.

 

[uwe]

I love this place!   I did also like Goat's Head Soup, however.   

That's another one of their better albums - for its decadence and Star Star.

[westen44]

And "Angie."

[Highlander]

I don't own a single Stones release... never have done... they have produced some great music, not in recent years, imho, but it just has not reached me in a great way...

[Granny Gremlin]

Ever cross your mind that your buddy is an idiot?

Yep.  He was, like, 18 and wasted.  I'm sure I mentioned that second bit.  Even sober he wasn't a genius. But the point is that Jagger's response was neither witty nor charming; more like the first thing that would come to anyone's mind, and a little mean (depending on delivery; me mate was not bothered).  I get it; annoying question from a starstruck brat, and you're on vacation so not in the mood.  Not saying he's horrible or anything, but it's just one more item in the negative things about Jagger column; right under that pointing thing he does on stage, and the period where he wore tights and knee pads all the time. ... and that's the only legit Stones annecdote I have.

To me, the grace with which one suffers fools is a rather good measure of a man's character (not conclusive on it's own, as if anything is, but still).  Never heard that about Lennon, but it wouldn't surprise me; not the most grounded fellow (and he had to put up with Yoko's voice 24/7).

[TBird1958]

I don't own a single Stones release... never have done... they have produced some great music, not in recent years, imho, but it just has not reached me in a great way...

Ahhhh,  well there's finally something aside from the wonders of Single Malt Scotch that we agree on Kenny 

[Highlander]

That and Hell's Pussys... and a Gibson or two... 

(they played School's Out on the radio a little earlier today and I stopped to think just where did the last 42 years go...? something to do with that Malt, I guess... )

[westen44]

I don't own a single Stones release... never have done... they have produced some great music, not in recent years, imho, but it just has not reached me in a great way...

I agree with Uwe's statement about them being a singles band.  It's all a matter of taste, but on their early albums I liked their filler songs, too.  After a while, I didn't so much.  I quit buying their albums at that point, but if one of their singles came on the radio, I'd listen to it. 

[dadagoboi]

Whether you like them or not The Stones were bending gender long before Shep Gordon dreamed up Alice's shtick.

[Pilgrim]

Out of all the classic rock I've heard, Sympathy for the Devil and Gimme Shelter stand out as two of the greatest tracks I've ever heard.  The Stones deserve a place on my playlists for those, even if they had never cut another number.

[uwe]

And "Angie."

A bit (ok: way too!) twee for my taste. Whenever the Stones try to be poppy or Beatlish, it backfires. They then begin to sound awkward or banal. Let's Spend the Night Together is an example for the latter. The Stones are best when they take a soul, funk, reggae, country, Chuck Berry-rock'n'roll or blues blueprint - all that New World music that is their eternal canvas - and add their 10-20% of Stones flourish to it. That is where they are unbeatable (the only band as good in that department would be J. Geils in their prime for me). The Stones sounded best when they did not try to sound like The Beatles and, vice versa, The Beatles sounded best when they did their little Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road ornamented masterpieces and did not attempt to out-Stone the Stones at their own game with something "authentic and primal" like Get Back or some of the stuff on the White Album. When the Stones play simple, it convinces; when the Beatles played simple, my thought was always "ah, a conscious effort!"  Ironically, The Beatles sophistication could even be heard when they played something relatively simple - their version of Berry's "Rock'n'Roll Music" is beyond anywhere the Stones could have taken the song, just listen to the Stones' version of another Berry song in comparison, "Around and Around", nice but hardly a giant leap away from the original. Unlike The Beatles, the Stones aren't innovators (nor did they want to be), but they are great, loving curators  of essentially all American music. (This is no Stones vs Beatles discussion, the two bands are so different they really don't step on each other's toes at all.)

When it comes to weepy Stones balldads, I prefer Fool to Cry, Memory Motel or Waiting on a Friend to Angie which sounds constructed to me. Of course millions think different!!!

[patman]

Wild Horses and Dead Flowers were always my favorites...

I loved Sticky Fingers...almost every tune was killer...

Conversely, I have never been able to listen to Some Girls all the way through...