Keith to Mick: Cram it, Sir
Published December 04, 2003
Keith Richards is pretty annoyed that Mick Jagger has accepted a knighthood from the Queen.
His objections, stripped of the mumbling and disconcertingly long pauses, are this: "it's a paltry honor ... It's not what the Stones is about, is it?" I'm with Keith on this one, except for one thing-- Mick was destined for knighthood, just as Keith was destined for contempt of Mick for accepting it.
This rift exposes what has always been a source of greateness for the Stones-- the tension between Mick's calculated posing and Keith's elemental directness, between Mick's London School of Economics schoolboyish naughtiness and Keith's taciturn, stoned badness. Few other bands have two such singular and powerful personalities to draw upon, and Keith's exasperation with Mick's knighting might have something to do the fact that the Stones' last vital music was made twenty-five years ago, and their last great music almost twenty. When they were at their creative peak, these differences were assets, but now that their powers have diminished while their stature has not, they're just... differences.
By the way... I'm amused that CNN has bought into the tired myth of Mick's "near spotless rebel credentials," as if those credentials aren't 50% marketing and 50% opportunity.
![Let It Bleed [DSD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41H1R6QX15L._SY90_.jpg "Let It Bleed [DSD]")
- Keith to Mick: Cram it, Sir
- Published: December 04, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Music
- Writer: John Owen
- John Owen's BC Writer page
- John Owen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
That'd be the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, back when they were partying with the Canadian PM's wife.
that far back? Man, I'm getting old.
1976.... I was two years old.
When the Rolling Stones put out their last good album (I'm sayin' Some Girls), I was in kindergarten.
Not that it matters, but IMHO the Stones are almost as bad as Dylan at sticking around long after they're wanted. The last twenty years have produced a handful of good singles ("Start me Up," "Waiting on a Friend"... um... "Mixed Emotions") and a gigantic load of lumpen mediocrity. At least the Stones have the decency not to hate their audience out loud, like Dylan seems to do.
But i digress. I'm probably flamethrowing here, but I'm in a tetchy mood today.
I'd have to say "Tattoo You" was far better than "Some Girls". Although, in my opinion it's the soul/R&B songs that are good. I never cared for "Start Me Up" or the other rockers on that album.
JR, that's certainly arguable. It pretty much comes down to Tattoo You and Some Girls for their last good record, unless you're some crazy purist who thinks they stopped making good music with Between The Buttons.
Yeah, man, the Stones without Brian Jones are like Pink Floyd without Syd Barrett. They shoulda packed it in while they were still cool. Or groovy. Whatever.
EO: I could be wrong on which Olympics it was; perhaps it could have been Lake Placid in '80, but I think it was '76. The whole hanging-around-with-Margaret-Trudeau thing was definitely around '76. She was in attendance at the show recorded at the El Mocambo club, as I recall.
I remember the Olympics announcer saying to Jagger that he still seemed pretty athletic for a guy his age, and he was only in his early 30's.
I disagree about packing it in after Brian Jones died. Their best work was after he was out of the picture: Sticky Fingers, Ya Ya's, Exile. For that matter, Floyd's best period was post-Barrett.
(You're not going to also claim that Soft Machine sucked once Ayers left, are you?)
Um... I was joking. I could have said Genesis sucked after Peter Gabriel, but I suspect a lot more people would take that one seriously. Personally, I'm a big fan of "sell-outs". I still don't get what the big deal is about Syd Barrett.
I agree with the Stones peaking around Sticky Fingers, although I never cared for Exile because the mix is just too "busy" for me. I seem to be in the minority on that one. But the songs are great.
Don't know much about Soft Machine; I'll have to look into them.
The Mick Taylor Stones were the best, although I like it all through Tattoo, and I like some of Steel Wheels.
I like Ayers much better solo than Soft Machine, although there is much coolness there as well.
Flyod was great both wayss, just different.
Who cares. They are only peopel who made music. So waht ? The rest is hype and gossip.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10671)
Excellent analysis Johno, thanks. I knew Mick was out of the rebel league when he was interviewed on TV at one of the Olympics back in the '80s.
Maybe Keith is a bit jealous as well.