New book says Mick Jagger is cool at all costs

New biography of Mick Jagger says Rolling Stones frontman is more fakery than devilry

BY JAMIE PORTMAN, POSTMEDIA NEWS OCTOBER 12, 2012


Mick Jagger, who turns 70 next year, is the focus of a new book.


The day must surely come when Mick Jagger will take a long look in the mirror, stop admiring himself and concede that he's - well - old. But don't hold your breath.

"If you've been told you're wonderful every day since you were 19, that's not going to go away," says veteran British rock writer Philip Norman, whose massive 600-page biography of Jagger is published in Canada this week by Doubleday. "A vanity that no earthly instrument can measure - that's obviously going to be there."

In other words, narcissism can be blind - an irony that surfaces in Norman's opening chapter when he talks about the famous Jagger lips, which are "now drawn in and bloodless, the cheeks etched by crevasses so wide and deep as to resemble terrible matching scars."

Yet, astonishingly, Jagger, who turns 70 next year, and the Rolling Stones continue to flourish - retaining, the book concludes, "the same sulphurous whiff of sin and rebellion they had" in their '20s - albeit in geriatric mode.

"You would think that after a certain point in life you would not want to do this any more," Norman says with a laugh. "But that's all Mick knows, and of course the rewards are enormous, and no matter how rich you are you apparently want to be richer."

Norman is no blinkered admirer. For example, he was outraged by Jagger's 2002 knighthood, and in an angry article for the London Daily Mail attacked Sir Mick's presence on the Queen's birthday honours list as "a disgrace and a travesty."

A decade later, he is more mellow in his judgment. "I did change my view of Jagger," Norman admits, as he chats about the need for balance in dealing with a maddeningly elusive subject.

And he has no doubt about Jagger's place in pop culture: "Without Mick, the Stones would have been over by 1968," he notes in the book.

Norman could have opted for sensationalism and concentrated on the Stones's outlaw reputation and Jagger's image as the rubber-lipped, pelvis-gyrating, libidinous "anti-Christ" of rock music, but that wouldn't have been the full story.

Determined to be fair, Norman concluded early in his researches that Jagger isn't taken seriously enough musically. Setting aside Jagger's "ludicrous" singing voice, he cites his brilliance on the harmonica and blues harp and calls his 1968 Sympathy for the Devil an "epic" pop song with brilliant lyrics.

Jagger is a challenge to any biographer because - in Norman's view - his public persona is essentially fakery. Asking the real Mick to stand up is an exercise in futility. But the book still yields revealing snapshots.

Some examples: A young Jagger being kicked downstairs by a furious Chrissie Shrimpton.

A frightened Mick weeping in a prison hospital after the 1967 drug bust at Richards's country home.

Jagger persuading two women in his life to plaster themselves with strawberries and whipped cream for "a polite English garden-party version of mud wrestling."

"He was regarded as a sort of Satan ... the anti-Christ ... and it was all a pose," says Norman .

"There was no trauma or rebellion in Jagger's early life. He came from a happy middle-class home in the Kentish suburbs ."



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Cool+costs/7367091/story.html#ixzz29D1VVSLB

Ludicrous singing voice? WTF???

I wonder how many books there are of Mick Jagger alone? earliest I remember is "Everybody's Lucifer" & that's going back to the early 70's I believe.
Bowie once said he had 34 books made of him & that's years ago.

Seems like Philip Norman writes a 600+ tome about somebody or another every year or two....he must either have a lot of time on his hands (even if that IS his profession) or else he's really learned the art of "filler". :) That's a lotta words! :nomames

Flipped through this book over the weekend. Really not that much you wouldn't have already known.
(did you know Mick and Keith ran into each other on a train station, while Mick had a Chuck Berry record under his arm? you don't say). At about page 600 of 651, you're at 1981, so that gives you an idea how much retread there is. He also overuses the phrase "tyranny of cool" to death but never really explains it.
Lots of facts are wrong, and his insistence on phonetically spelling out Mick phrasing in songs is grating.

For completists only.