“In order to understand Mick Jagger better, it’s always instructive to recall the state he found himself in at the end of the sixties. On the one hand, he was the rebel prince of New Bohemia - someone millions of young people the world over idolised and aspired to be. On the other, he´d had to witness Brian Jones´s pitiful meltdown and strange, sudden death as well as the descent into heroin addition by the two people he was the closest to - Marianne Faithfull and Keith Richards.
Even more dramatically, he´d lately discovered that most of the money the Stones had made in the sixties had been pocketed by manager Allen Klein, along with all the rights to their recorded back catalogue. He had two basis choices: either join his soulmates in narcotic never-never land or assert himself as a canny businessman steer the Rolling Stones’ leaky ship towards more advantageous waters. The guy chose to survive and thrive. Without his relentless input, the group would have petered out after the recording of Let It Bleed. And yet somehow he always ends up the villian whenever the Stones saga gets recounted - the control freak, the cold fish, the cunning, the heartless greed-head. It’s become one big fairy story - the Rolling Stones as perceived by the world’s media - with Jagger as the resident evil goblin.”
- Nick Kent. “Apathy For The Devil”. Faber and Faber, 2010.
3 kommentarer:
Interessant vinkel - Mick har været ensom!
XXX JU
Mick har holdt skuden i vandet og sikret at Stones ikke er endt på fattiggården, som mange af deres gamle blues helte.
Man kan næsten ikke tillade sig at kalde ham Poor Mick. Men det billede, som især den engelske presse tegner af ham, er jo nærmest det samme som den hylder Paul McCartney for. Strange.
Jeg kan kun anbefale at læse bogen. Der er masser rock’n’roll gossip, men Kent byder også på mange anderledes synsvinkler end den ikoniserede rockhistorie. Fx om, hvordan Ferry nærmest tvang Eno ud af Roxy Music. Bare for at nævne en enkel.
Send en kommentar