What do you think?
Rate this book
Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler, Rogue
A biography and cultural examination of the Rolling Stones' frontman Mick Jagger's spectacular life and the cultural revolution he led. As the Rolling Stones' legendary front man Mick Jagger remains an enigma. He hasn't given an in-depth interview for a decade and a half and never commented on his friend and partner, Keith Richard's often critical biography. Drawing on firsthand recollections from rockers, filmmakers, writers, radicals, and other artists who have been transformed by Mick Jagger's work, acclaimed music journalist Marc Spitz has created a unique examination of the Jagger legacy, debunking long held myths and restoring his status as a complicated artist. Combining biography with cultural history, Jagger unfolds like a captivating documentary, a series of episodes tracing the icon's rise from his childhood in middle-class postwar London to his status as a jet-setting knight.
A culturally astute, often funny, and painstakingly researched read, Jagger offers a far richer portrait than biographies published previously. The book reveals much about his relationships (with Marianne Faithfull and ex-wives Bianca Jagger and Jerry Hall); his complex, creative partnership with Keith Richards; his friends like John Lennon and David Bowie; and enemies like Hells Angels leader Sonny Barger. Spitz goes even deeper, exploring Jagger's many an authentic soul man; powerful social commentator; sexual liberator; would-be movie star; and yes, sometimes, a shrewd businessman with an enthusiasm for much younger women. The myth of Mick is examined and rebooted for the twenty-first century.
A culturally astute, often funny, and painstakingly researched read, Jagger offers a far richer portrait than biographies published previously. The book reveals much about his relationships (with Marianne Faithfull and ex-wives Bianca Jagger and Jerry Hall); his complex, creative partnership with Keith Richards; his friends like John Lennon and David Bowie; and enemies like Hells Angels leader Sonny Barger. Spitz goes even deeper, exploring Jagger's many an authentic soul man; powerful social commentator; sexual liberator; would-be movie star; and yes, sometimes, a shrewd businessman with an enthusiasm for much younger women. The myth of Mick is examined and rebooted for the twenty-first century.
- GenresMusicBiographyNonfiction
320 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2011
32 people are currently reading
209 people want to read
About the author
Marc Spitz
30 books41 followersMarc Spitz was a former senior writer at Spin magazine. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Maxim, Blender, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, Nylon and the New York Post. Spitz is the co-author (with Brendan Mullen) of the 2001 LA punk oral history We Got The Neutron Bomb: The Untold Story of L.A. Punk. He has authored two novels, How Soon is Never (2003) and Too Much, Too Late (2006), as well as Nobody Likes You: Inside the Turbulent Life, Times, and Music of Green Day. His biography of David Bowie, entitled God and Man was released in the Fall of 2009.
Several of his plays, including Retail Sluts (1998), The Rise And Fall of the Farewell Drugs (1998), ...Worry, Baby (1999), I Wanna Be Adored (1999), Shyness is Nice (2001), Gravity Always Wins (2003), The Name of This Play is Talking Heads (2005), and Your Face Is A Mess (2007) have been produced in New York City. 'His holiday short "Marshmallow World" was produced at The Brick Theatre in Brooklyn in December of 2007. Shyness is Nice was revived by the Alliance Repertory Theatre company in Los Angeles in 2003, and The Name of this Play is Talking Heads was produced in the summer of 2006 on Nantucket. A new play, 4, a one-act comedy will be produced in the spring of 2009.
Spitz has spoken at Columbia University (on playwrighting) and DePaul University (on journalism), and appeared as a "talking head" on MTV, VH1, MSNBC.
Several of his plays, including Retail Sluts (1998), The Rise And Fall of the Farewell Drugs (1998), ...Worry, Baby (1999), I Wanna Be Adored (1999), Shyness is Nice (2001), Gravity Always Wins (2003), The Name of This Play is Talking Heads (2005), and Your Face Is A Mess (2007) have been produced in New York City. 'His holiday short "Marshmallow World" was produced at The Brick Theatre in Brooklyn in December of 2007. Shyness is Nice was revived by the Alliance Repertory Theatre company in Los Angeles in 2003, and The Name of this Play is Talking Heads was produced in the summer of 2006 on Nantucket. A new play, 4, a one-act comedy will be produced in the spring of 2009.
Spitz has spoken at Columbia University (on playwrighting) and DePaul University (on journalism), and appeared as a "talking head" on MTV, VH1, MSNBC.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
July 2, 2020
Superb concise study of Mick Jagger. Enormous fun to read, but most Stones fans will already know all the best stories. More of a critical essay than a full-length biography.
The problem with this book once you read in depth is that Marc Spitz focuses on all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons. When I read a book about the Rolling Stones, I don't need five pages on what Carly Simon thought about Mick. I want five pages on what Chuck Berry thought about Mick. There's a lot of stuff in here about silly jet-set people, like Truman Capote and Bianca Jagger, and almost nothing about Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf.
Another problem is that while Marc Spitz is fairly rigorous about Mick's values and ideals, (or the oft-noted lack thereof) he's almost comically willing to take everyone else's testimony at face value. Too much of the book is Spitz holding hands with silly lady has-beens while they soulfully moan the blues. Sort of like:
"Well of course I got into heroin," Marianne Faithfull told me, over coffee in Vienna. "Mick just wasn't paying any attention to my brilliant mind, and nobody outside the Stones had any idea what a genius I really was. Heroin was my way of showing everyone I had a mind of my own!"
Then there's the infamous Truman Capote scandal. Now I have nothing against Capote. Read my review of Other Voices, Other Rooms! But when he was hanging with the Stones in 1972, he was so out of it on drugs and celebrity that he couldn't even file a story about their '72 tour. The bizarre thing is that Spitz seems to admire Capote for being out of it. Like he's on Johnny Carson and he keeps referring to the Stones as "The Beatles." Spitz says that's a devastating put down. I think it's more pathetic than anything else.
Why did Truman Capote resent Mick Jagger? Did he get spurned in the bedroom? Or was it something much darker, something to do with race? As a product of rural Alabama, I suspect Truman Capote was deeply threatened by Mick Jagger's obvious respect for black men like Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf. Capote's ancestors used to kill men like that for sport. That's why Capote can't tell the Beatles from the Rolling Stones!
Spitz pretty much ignores all this. He never met a burned out has-been he didn't like. Spitz repeats all the silliest, most self-pitying slop you can imagine with a straight face. He also wastes way too much time analyzing garbage like "Angie" and "As Tears Go By" while totally ignoring the good stuff. And while all this is going on, somewhere Mick is humming either "19th Nervous Breakdown" or "Stupid Girl."
The problem with this book once you read in depth is that Marc Spitz focuses on all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons. When I read a book about the Rolling Stones, I don't need five pages on what Carly Simon thought about Mick. I want five pages on what Chuck Berry thought about Mick. There's a lot of stuff in here about silly jet-set people, like Truman Capote and Bianca Jagger, and almost nothing about Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf.
Another problem is that while Marc Spitz is fairly rigorous about Mick's values and ideals, (or the oft-noted lack thereof) he's almost comically willing to take everyone else's testimony at face value. Too much of the book is Spitz holding hands with silly lady has-beens while they soulfully moan the blues. Sort of like:
"Well of course I got into heroin," Marianne Faithfull told me, over coffee in Vienna. "Mick just wasn't paying any attention to my brilliant mind, and nobody outside the Stones had any idea what a genius I really was. Heroin was my way of showing everyone I had a mind of my own!"
Then there's the infamous Truman Capote scandal. Now I have nothing against Capote. Read my review of Other Voices, Other Rooms! But when he was hanging with the Stones in 1972, he was so out of it on drugs and celebrity that he couldn't even file a story about their '72 tour. The bizarre thing is that Spitz seems to admire Capote for being out of it. Like he's on Johnny Carson and he keeps referring to the Stones as "The Beatles." Spitz says that's a devastating put down. I think it's more pathetic than anything else.
Why did Truman Capote resent Mick Jagger? Did he get spurned in the bedroom? Or was it something much darker, something to do with race? As a product of rural Alabama, I suspect Truman Capote was deeply threatened by Mick Jagger's obvious respect for black men like Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf. Capote's ancestors used to kill men like that for sport. That's why Capote can't tell the Beatles from the Rolling Stones!
Spitz pretty much ignores all this. He never met a burned out has-been he didn't like. Spitz repeats all the silliest, most self-pitying slop you can imagine with a straight face. He also wastes way too much time analyzing garbage like "Angie" and "As Tears Go By" while totally ignoring the good stuff. And while all this is going on, somewhere Mick is humming either "19th Nervous Breakdown" or "Stupid Girl."
March 21, 2012
This was terrible. It reads like a status update or a tweet. I literally don't know how Spitz keeps getting these great biographical subjects and then turns in writing that isn't even blog-worthy. 'Jagger' contains no insights on Mick Jagger as a musician, it is way too short as well (Jagger has been recording music for five decades and the book is like 300 pages) how he managed to write a boring book about Mick Jagger I will never understand.
I read Spitz's biography on David Bowie a few years ago and was equally unimpressed. He is not even on Stephen Davis' level as a biographer. I am keeping this review short because it is not worth a lot of thought. In closing, Mark Spitz must have some sweet connections because he is an extremely shallow biographer.
I read Spitz's biography on David Bowie a few years ago and was equally unimpressed. He is not even on Stephen Davis' level as a biographer. I am keeping this review short because it is not worth a lot of thought. In closing, Mark Spitz must have some sweet connections because he is an extremely shallow biographer.
May 27, 2019
Well written. Just coming off reading Keith’s biography this was a nice way to fill in the gaps and get a different perspective. I find the frontman/lead guitarist/writing partner/friendship fascinating. Not just in the Stones but Queen and other bands. These relationships are like brothers, friends, partners. Lots of love, jealousy and egos.
January 16, 2020
"When we consider the Rolling Stones, we think of the heart and we think of the groin. We don't dwell on the brain. 'Keith is the heart,' [...] the music publicist Keith Altham remarked [...] 'Mick is the brain'."
Mick Jagger, "all brain and no heart." The metaphor appeals to me. Somehow I have never been a big fan of the Rolling Stones, even though in the 1960s I listened to their music every day. In the mid-Sixties I preferred The Kinks, The Animals, and later all progressive bands. In particular, I have never admired Mick Jagger and his scene persona. Mark Spitz's Jagger (2011) partly validates my prejudice. It is a well-written, readable, and quite detailed biography of the Rolling Stones front man and singer as well as a story of one of the most famous bands in popular music history.
We read about Mr. Jagger's childhood (he met his future band partner, Keith Richards, in primary school) and youth, when he aced the A levels and got into the London School of Economics, and about the band's debut at the Marquee in July 1962. Then the American tour in 1964 and the steady and fast rise to the very top of the world of popular music:
I particularly appreciate the author's attempts to characterize the frenetic atmosphere of the late 1960's and the cultural shift happening then - the impending clash of the beautiful yet utopian ideas of Flower Power with the cold and business-driven reality of society. I came of age at that time and, naturally, being "inside" the phenomenon, was not able to observe it.
Goodreads members might appreciate the mention of Mikhail Bulgakov's masterpiece novel The Master and Margarita. Mr. Jagger claims that the novel was one of the main inspirations for Sympathy for the Devil, a song that comes from the 1968 album Beggars Banquet and is my second most favorite piece by the Stones (the first is Paint It Black (1966)).
According to many contemporary historians the "End of the Sixties" was signified by the Altamont Free Concert tragedy in December of 1969. The author provides a detailed account of the events that, as he writes, "burned up a lot of utopian energy, leaving in its place fear and confusion, and, worse, cynicism and selfishness." He also, rather uncharacteristically, as the entire biography is pretty sympathetic to Mr. Jagger, offers a dramatic juxtaposition of the death of Meredith Hunter at Altamont with the mention of Mick Jagger depositing the money earned during the tour in a Swiss bank.
The later years of the Rolling Stones are less eventful as they slowly morph from a rock band into "a band full of rich and famous people." Mick Jagger enjoys an intermittent acting career, with most notable performances in Nicholas Roeg's Performance and Tony Richardson's Ned Kelly. In 2002 Mick Jagger is honored with knighthood by the Queen "for services to popular music," and the author provides slightly sarcastic remarks on that occasion.
Good biography, not quite four-star work, but solid, captivating, and readable. I am unable to refrain from quoting a neat pearl of wisdom:
Three-and-a-half stars.
Mick Jagger, "all brain and no heart." The metaphor appeals to me. Somehow I have never been a big fan of the Rolling Stones, even though in the 1960s I listened to their music every day. In the mid-Sixties I preferred The Kinks, The Animals, and later all progressive bands. In particular, I have never admired Mick Jagger and his scene persona. Mark Spitz's Jagger (2011) partly validates my prejudice. It is a well-written, readable, and quite detailed biography of the Rolling Stones front man and singer as well as a story of one of the most famous bands in popular music history.
We read about Mr. Jagger's childhood (he met his future band partner, Keith Richards, in primary school) and youth, when he aced the A levels and got into the London School of Economics, and about the band's debut at the Marquee in July 1962. Then the American tour in 1964 and the steady and fast rise to the very top of the world of popular music:
"By 1967, the Rolling Stones were more influential than ever, and it's easy to see how they might have felt invulnerable and a bit too messianic."We read in minute detail about the infamous drug bust, trial, and sentencing of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards as well about the role of The Times editorial in their early release.
I particularly appreciate the author's attempts to characterize the frenetic atmosphere of the late 1960's and the cultural shift happening then - the impending clash of the beautiful yet utopian ideas of Flower Power with the cold and business-driven reality of society. I came of age at that time and, naturally, being "inside" the phenomenon, was not able to observe it.
Goodreads members might appreciate the mention of Mikhail Bulgakov's masterpiece novel The Master and Margarita. Mr. Jagger claims that the novel was one of the main inspirations for Sympathy for the Devil, a song that comes from the 1968 album Beggars Banquet and is my second most favorite piece by the Stones (the first is Paint It Black (1966)).
According to many contemporary historians the "End of the Sixties" was signified by the Altamont Free Concert tragedy in December of 1969. The author provides a detailed account of the events that, as he writes, "burned up a lot of utopian energy, leaving in its place fear and confusion, and, worse, cynicism and selfishness." He also, rather uncharacteristically, as the entire biography is pretty sympathetic to Mr. Jagger, offers a dramatic juxtaposition of the death of Meredith Hunter at Altamont with the mention of Mick Jagger depositing the money earned during the tour in a Swiss bank.
The later years of the Rolling Stones are less eventful as they slowly morph from a rock band into "a band full of rich and famous people." Mick Jagger enjoys an intermittent acting career, with most notable performances in Nicholas Roeg's Performance and Tony Richardson's Ned Kelly. In 2002 Mick Jagger is honored with knighthood by the Queen "for services to popular music," and the author provides slightly sarcastic remarks on that occasion.
Good biography, not quite four-star work, but solid, captivating, and readable. I am unable to refrain from quoting a neat pearl of wisdom:
"[...] canny businessman that he is, he knows that it's the past that has the most currency."Naturally, that's about Sir Mick Jagger.
Three-and-a-half stars.
January 2, 2012
Having lived in England during the 1960s and early ‘70s it is impossible to remain neutral regarding the Rolling Stones. People loved them or hated them. I will freely admit that I fell into the latter category.
I tried to read “Jagger” with an open mind, wondering whether my long held prejudices would be born out. Marc Spitz, while pulling no punches as far as the star’s behavior, still appears to dote on Mick Jagger. Upon finishing the book, I believe that a more apt sub title would have been “Egomaniac Juvenile Delinquent, Septuagenarian Juvenile Delinquent”.
The catalog of Jagger’s antics, worthy only of the gutter press, is not even very readable. Spitz uses words like “zeitgeist” over and over and a plethora of ‘60s drug slang that make comprehension difficult for those of us not “privileged” to have been part of “the scene”.
Then there are passages like the following which speak for themselves:
“Mick’s boyhood love of the blues didn’t really inform the new album sessions sonically, but might have opened him up to the power of truth.”
The record of self-indulgence continues throughout. He married twice, but felt no compunction to remain faithful; the list of his “conquests” is long and sad. Drugs of various kinds were a part of daily life for Jagger and his associates, although Jagger does not seem have been addicted to the extent of many of his other friends and associates.
Aging has not been graceful for Jagger. One has only to remember that sad Super bowl performance a few years ago when the wrinkled remains of the band strutted their superannuated stuff before a huge TV audience. Solo projects on stage and on film led to nothing, and the choice of material is still the arena for a corrosive struggle between Jagger and Richards.
One can only hope that those who read this book will find that the mythic status of this sad individual is just that, myth.
I tried to read “Jagger” with an open mind, wondering whether my long held prejudices would be born out. Marc Spitz, while pulling no punches as far as the star’s behavior, still appears to dote on Mick Jagger. Upon finishing the book, I believe that a more apt sub title would have been “Egomaniac Juvenile Delinquent, Septuagenarian Juvenile Delinquent”.
The catalog of Jagger’s antics, worthy only of the gutter press, is not even very readable. Spitz uses words like “zeitgeist” over and over and a plethora of ‘60s drug slang that make comprehension difficult for those of us not “privileged” to have been part of “the scene”.
Then there are passages like the following which speak for themselves:
“Mick’s boyhood love of the blues didn’t really inform the new album sessions sonically, but might have opened him up to the power of truth.”
The record of self-indulgence continues throughout. He married twice, but felt no compunction to remain faithful; the list of his “conquests” is long and sad. Drugs of various kinds were a part of daily life for Jagger and his associates, although Jagger does not seem have been addicted to the extent of many of his other friends and associates.
Aging has not been graceful for Jagger. One has only to remember that sad Super bowl performance a few years ago when the wrinkled remains of the band strutted their superannuated stuff before a huge TV audience. Solo projects on stage and on film led to nothing, and the choice of material is still the arena for a corrosive struggle between Jagger and Richards.
One can only hope that those who read this book will find that the mythic status of this sad individual is just that, myth.
December 20, 2017
Libro bastante ameno, nunca me imaginé las peripecias de este personaje.
August 23, 2023
mam wrażenie że ta książka zamiast pokazać Micka z jak najlepszej strony to pokazuje go jako największego wroga na świecie i nie pokazuje pełnego obrazu jego kariery
August 8, 2019
First of all, I call foul on this book's classification. I kept thinking 'this isn't a biography, it's a series of essays', which is how it read. A series of essays by a pretentious guy who really didn't like Mick Jagger all that much. So I went to the initial pages to see if I had accidentally picked up something from a different genre but no, this book is officially copywrited as a biography. But when I looked through the jacket blurbs I got quotes like this "exploration of jagger's legacy',' sustained late-night rant' so it's not just me. It's not a biography. It's a ramble that sometimes tells me interesting things I didn't know, and often skips wildly over huge chunks of his life. (Satisfaction hits the charts. Next paragraph "by 1969 the Stones were kings". Hey! Marc! You just yadayadayada'd over the freaking 60's! I didn't really like the author's voice and want to reassure Sir Mick of some things about his fan base. (Because this author and his pals ain't it. ) We, your solid fans down here on the street, who have never been to these fancy parties and have liked the Rolling Stones and you since ye days of yore 1) are not shocked that you all look older. We know how that goes. We are not marveling over each new picture like it's Dorian Grey's portrait. You have aged, we have aged. It's not some sort of existential crisis for most of us. 2) yes we love the old songs and cheer out brains out for Satisfaction but we admire and appreciate the fact that the new music also keeps on coming. Our fixation on old songs says far more about us, where and when we were when we first met them, than it does about the actual objective musical value. (although I personally think 'As Tears Go By' is as good as it gets). 3) We admire you for continuing to perform. Go you! We are not pondering alternate career moves for you, or replaying your old quotes about how you'd never want to do that at what seemed to all of us the great age of 45. We know we all said things in our youth that we would not want to be held to.
I guess that's it. Those were the main themes of the book. I didn't like it although I did like the little celebrity tidbits dropped along the way. My favorite was that Anita Pallenberg, Keith's 'old lady' and quite the wild jet setting beautiful muse, was the Black Queen in Barbarella. I have to go find a copy. But that's not really the kind of insight I expect from a biography.
I guess that's it. Those were the main themes of the book. I didn't like it although I did like the little celebrity tidbits dropped along the way. My favorite was that Anita Pallenberg, Keith's 'old lady' and quite the wild jet setting beautiful muse, was the Black Queen in Barbarella. I have to go find a copy. But that's not really the kind of insight I expect from a biography.
November 26, 2014
While I grew up during the 60s and 70s, and was well aware of the Rolling Stones, I had little to no interest in them or their music; I don't know why - I guess I was just a nerd. The only member of the group who I really knew was Mick Jagger, but I was not very impressed with him and didn't follow his career at all. Last year I read Keith Richard's "Life" and a small flame was lit in me. I loved the way he wrote in a conversational, confidential style that made one feel like he was divulging secrets that no one else knew, so when I saw Marc Spitz's "Jagger" at the library, I was very interested to see what revelations would come from that point of view.
Unfortunately, I found the writing to be rather dull and detached - as though the writer was merely making a factual account of a life as opposed to making that life real and interesting. I am actually still in the process of reading it, and am having trouble even picking it up to continue. It feels more like compulsory reading for a course as opposed to something I really want to do.
The author is sympathetic to Jagger and extols his many talents and unrelenting energy; he does succeed to some extent in portraying a true artist, but the human aspect of the man is still vague. We are given an accurate accounting of the career of a rock group and a man, but there is no sense of knowing the man at all. Perhaps that is the most important take away from this biography.
Unfortunately, I found the writing to be rather dull and detached - as though the writer was merely making a factual account of a life as opposed to making that life real and interesting. I am actually still in the process of reading it, and am having trouble even picking it up to continue. It feels more like compulsory reading for a course as opposed to something I really want to do.
The author is sympathetic to Jagger and extols his many talents and unrelenting energy; he does succeed to some extent in portraying a true artist, but the human aspect of the man is still vague. We are given an accurate accounting of the career of a rock group and a man, but there is no sense of knowing the man at all. Perhaps that is the most important take away from this biography.
February 13, 2016
I didn't think this book was as bad as some have rated it. Overall it is a moderately interesting apology for the Stone who has remained somewhat enigmatic at best, or comes off as entirely mercenary at worst. Spitz makes a point of contrasting Mick's comparatively passive, conflict-averse persona to that of pirate rebel and snarler-in-chief, Keith Richards. Where the author loses me is in the lengthy excursus on "You're So Vain" (Mick does backup vocals, in case anyone doesn't already know that), and his claim that the death of the 60s didn't occur at Altamont Speedway, but rather with the distribution of the comic parody about The Rutles, featuring a cameo by Sir Mick and, of course, the brilliant and loving sendups of the Fab Four's songs by the genius Neil Innes. I appreciate his sympathy for Marianne Faithful and his defense of Mick's musical and artistic integrity against detractors, but in the end it's really about the music, and Mick has no need of apologists there.
April 9, 2012
While reading Keith Richards' Life last year, I kept thinking it would be nice to read Mick Jagger's take on that same story. Until then, this book is a pretty good substitute (and its author makes a pretty good case for why a Mick Jagger autobiography probably won't ever happen).
The book suffers from not having a lot of Jagger's actual voice, and it lags a little in the final chapters, but all in all a good read if you like the Rolling Stones.
The book suffers from not having a lot of Jagger's actual voice, and it lags a little in the final chapters, but all in all a good read if you like the Rolling Stones.
June 20, 2019
This book tells the highlights of Mick’s life without focusing on the tabloid stories about him. Don’t get me wrong, there was some mention of the tabloid sensations that he created, but they were not the focus. The author tried to explain what makes Mick tick. I learned about many things that that I didn’t know about Mick and was reminded about things that I had forgotten.
May 20, 2021
My read on the biography did some works on me. Influenced by the figures and words, Spitz's take on this really counted as a successful storyteller. But he did bring his own particular and adjust thought to them, that might give something off of the 'biography' definition itself. But all-in-all, this book is a read.
September 21, 2017
I was never a fan of the Rolling Stones. I probably got this book in a package deal with something about the Beatles, but Jagger is an interesting fellow. This biography, although well-written and hugely researched, is hampered by the fact that Spitz did not interview Jagger or spend time around him. He depends on quotes from written material and interviews with other people. That makes the book feel a bit encyclopedic and impersonal. I get a little lost in all the names and suffer from not knowing the Stones’ recordings, tours, films, etc. Still, I know a lot more about Jagger and the other Stones now than I did before. Fans studying Jagger, still performing in his 70s, will find this a valuable complement to the other books written about him.
November 22, 2018
No me ha gustado nada......Durante todo el libro ha sido una comparación continúa de Mick con: Dylan, McCartney, Lennon, Jones, Richards; y cuando ya no comparaba a la persona comparaba a los Rolling con los Beatles. Pensaba que iba a leer una biografía de Mick Jagger, y como tal lo es, pero me ha faltado de todo (en general Mick Jagger como músico, que por eso la quise leer), me han sobrado miles de cosas y no me ha gustado nada...Para mí ha sido una pérdida de tiempo.
March 14, 2020
det er nok et spørgsmål om man kan kalde det en biografi, når hovedpersonen ikke selv er inde over bogen... Hvis man kender en lille smule til Rolling Stones og Mick Jagger kender man de fleste historier som Marc Spitz spinder en ende over i denne bog baseret på andre bøger (specielt Keith Richards egne biografi), bladartikler og forfatterens egne konklusioner - jeg havde håbet på lidt mere indsigt og historie om Jagger... men til en flad 50'er i udsalg er det en OK bog....
August 28, 2017
An excellent retrospective of Mick's life and career. I thoroughly enjoyed the details pertaining to Marianne Faithfull and Anita Pallenberg. I also appreciated the parts about Living Color as I saw the Steel Wheels tour in 1989.
February 8, 2018
Como biografía es interesante. Pero recomendable sólo a los muy versados en el mundo musical de producciones y personajes típicos. El autor abusa de referencias musicales. Tampoco es lo suficientemente claro en la cronología y eso, al ser una biografía, parece un error importante.
March 21, 2018
I'm a 90's kid. I did not grow up with the Stones and my parrents listened to Beatles and ABBA. I saw the Stones at a festival a few years back and it sparked my interrest, but this book is for the fans, more than it is for the general public.
Not a wasted read though.
Not a wasted read though.
March 16, 2019
I found this tale to be long and drawn out from different clippings of other stories. I did appreciate the story line being chronological and getting a flavor of the history. True Stones fans will probably enjoy. Me, just so-so.
August 5, 2018
Que biografia legal , conta a história de jagger não centrado ele mas pelos acontecimentos em torno dele e dos stones
Read
May 26, 2020so so
August 25, 2020
Couldn’t finish the book tried not sure if was the book or myself not crazy about biographies love the stones but couldn’t finish the book
January 7, 2020
Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler was an interesting book to read, but it left far too much out, was too short for its subject matter, and sort of rambled itself in its style. Marc Spitz kind of jumps all over the place, perhaps trying to emulate Mick's own gyrations. It starts out with the beginnings of the Stones, but there's almost nothing at all really written about their beginnings in any real detail. You're left to fill in the blanks yourself. We find out that their first hit was one given to them by the Beatles, which I already knew, but then their rivalry with the Beatles is never really fleshed out. Apparently Mick and Keith looked up to Lennon, so when Lennon made a derogatory remark about the Stones sometime during the '70s, they were really hurt.
Here's what bugs me about the book. Spitz jumps from 1965 to 1967. What happened in between? We'll never know, at least from Spitz. And that's the style of the book. He leaps over entire years and periods of time when presumably the Stones aren't as busy as others, such as the late '70s. That really annoyed me. He also talks of their touring, sometimes in real detail, and he does go into detail about the infamous Altamont incident, but their life on the road really isn't addressed in any depth. Most books I've read about bands really cover touring, but not this book.
Spitz treats Jagger fairly well, while somehow painting him in a narcissistic, selfish, insecure light at the same time. He clearly admires Jagger's aging process, wondering time and time again how someone of Jagger's advanced age can be in such good shape and still have it going for them. And he covers Jagger's solo work, albeit lightly, as well as his film work, especially the failed Free Jack movie (which I saw and was disappointed in). However, Spitz doesn't treat Keith Richards very well, portraying him as jealous, callow, and vengeful. It actually makes me want to read Richards' bio, which I saw in a used bookstore recently. I might get it just for his take on things. It's also much bigger, so maybe there'll actually be more on the Stones as a band. Spitz asserts that Richards didn't get along with Jagger from Exile on Main Street to the present. I don't know. I'd like to know more.
This book is decent, but barely worthy of three stars, which is why it has a 2.85 rating on Goodreads, I guess. It should have been twice as long and twice as detailed and it should have covered everything. I mean Jagger's been at it for 50 years and this book is only 300 pages. I think the Lennon bio I recently read was close to 900 pages. That seems more fitting. I don't know why Spitz chose to write such an abbreviated account and call it a day. Laziness? Boredom? I think he could have done better, and apparently he wrote a good Bowie bio, so he's capable of more. He just didn't follow through with this Jagger book and that's disappointing. I really don't think I can recommend this book. Pity.
Here's what bugs me about the book. Spitz jumps from 1965 to 1967. What happened in between? We'll never know, at least from Spitz. And that's the style of the book. He leaps over entire years and periods of time when presumably the Stones aren't as busy as others, such as the late '70s. That really annoyed me. He also talks of their touring, sometimes in real detail, and he does go into detail about the infamous Altamont incident, but their life on the road really isn't addressed in any depth. Most books I've read about bands really cover touring, but not this book.
Spitz treats Jagger fairly well, while somehow painting him in a narcissistic, selfish, insecure light at the same time. He clearly admires Jagger's aging process, wondering time and time again how someone of Jagger's advanced age can be in such good shape and still have it going for them. And he covers Jagger's solo work, albeit lightly, as well as his film work, especially the failed Free Jack movie (which I saw and was disappointed in). However, Spitz doesn't treat Keith Richards very well, portraying him as jealous, callow, and vengeful. It actually makes me want to read Richards' bio, which I saw in a used bookstore recently. I might get it just for his take on things. It's also much bigger, so maybe there'll actually be more on the Stones as a band. Spitz asserts that Richards didn't get along with Jagger from Exile on Main Street to the present. I don't know. I'd like to know more.
This book is decent, but barely worthy of three stars, which is why it has a 2.85 rating on Goodreads, I guess. It should have been twice as long and twice as detailed and it should have covered everything. I mean Jagger's been at it for 50 years and this book is only 300 pages. I think the Lennon bio I recently read was close to 900 pages. That seems more fitting. I don't know why Spitz chose to write such an abbreviated account and call it a day. Laziness? Boredom? I think he could have done better, and apparently he wrote a good Bowie bio, so he's capable of more. He just didn't follow through with this Jagger book and that's disappointing. I really don't think I can recommend this book. Pity.
February 7, 2019
For those of you who have been living in a cave for the past 50 years, Mick Jagger is the lead singer of the Rolling Stones: a rock band of such mind-blowing coolness that not even having their songs sung on Glee can diminish their awesomeness.
With the band’s upcoming golden anniversary and the recent publication of band member Keith Richards’ autobiography, it’s the perfect time for a biography that will separate Jagger-the-myth from Jagger-the-man.
Mark Spitz’s Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler, Rogue is not that biography.
The greatest weakness of Spitz’s book is that he devotes very little time to Mick Jagger. After giving a brief sketch of Jagger’s pre-Stone life, Spitz starts discussing everyone and everything but his supposed subject. As a consequence, readers are given more insight into such figures as Anita Pallenberg and Truman Capote than they are into Jagger.
When Spitz does write directly about Jagger, he usually does so in such a generalized way that he could almost be talking about any of the Stones. He also has a tendency to skip over all but the most important events in Jagger’s life.
What keeps me from completely dismissing this book is that Spitz is at least accurate. Unlike so many celebrity biographers, he doesn’t try to pass off urban legends as fact. This makes Jagger a useful reference tool, even if it doesn’t make it an enthralling read.
When discussing Jean-Luc Godard’s Sympathy for the Devil, Spitz quotes Mick Farren’s summation of the film: “It meant well but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know.” The same can be said of Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler, Rogue.
Received via Netgalley.
I originally wrote this review for The Chant Online in 2011. It is reprinted with permission.
With the band’s upcoming golden anniversary and the recent publication of band member Keith Richards’ autobiography, it’s the perfect time for a biography that will separate Jagger-the-myth from Jagger-the-man.
Mark Spitz’s Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler, Rogue is not that biography.
The greatest weakness of Spitz’s book is that he devotes very little time to Mick Jagger. After giving a brief sketch of Jagger’s pre-Stone life, Spitz starts discussing everyone and everything but his supposed subject. As a consequence, readers are given more insight into such figures as Anita Pallenberg and Truman Capote than they are into Jagger.
When Spitz does write directly about Jagger, he usually does so in such a generalized way that he could almost be talking about any of the Stones. He also has a tendency to skip over all but the most important events in Jagger’s life.
What keeps me from completely dismissing this book is that Spitz is at least accurate. Unlike so many celebrity biographers, he doesn’t try to pass off urban legends as fact. This makes Jagger a useful reference tool, even if it doesn’t make it an enthralling read.
When discussing Jean-Luc Godard’s Sympathy for the Devil, Spitz quotes Mick Farren’s summation of the film: “It meant well but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know.” The same can be said of Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler, Rogue.
Received via Netgalley.
I originally wrote this review for The Chant Online in 2011. It is reprinted with permission.
January 16, 2013
Other readers on Goodreads have slammed this book for many reasons, not least of which being the "fact" that this is not a "great" Jagger biography. Yet those readers seem to be oblivious to the fact that Spitz is not attempting to write a Jagger bio; he says as much in the introduction. Instead, Spitz offers something potentially more interesting than just another standard bio: he poses a question concerning Jagger and then seeks to find the answer by analyzing particular moments in Jagger's life. Whether Spitz succeeds or fails at this is up for debate---read it yourself and find out. Considering the length of the book which is less than 300 pages (the first clue that this could not be a definitive bio on Jagger), "Jagger" is a fun and quickly paced read---a picaresque look at different moments in Jagger's life in the service of Sptiz's theories on Jagger.
While I was left feeling that the answer to Spitz's hypothesis was still unanswerable as the book concluded, "Jagger" is nonetheless a nice alternative to de facto rock biographies. For Spitz is no stranger to composing a good, solid biography (see his excellent "Bowie"), and in "Jagger" his aim is something else; namely, to encourage a dialogue about a rock legend that all Stones fans love to read about and talk about.
While I was left feeling that the answer to Spitz's hypothesis was still unanswerable as the book concluded, "Jagger" is nonetheless a nice alternative to de facto rock biographies. For Spitz is no stranger to composing a good, solid biography (see his excellent "Bowie"), and in "Jagger" his aim is something else; namely, to encourage a dialogue about a rock legend that all Stones fans love to read about and talk about.
May 5, 2019
Förra julen fick jag en biografi om Mick Jagger, skriven av musikjournalisten Marc Spitz, av min bror. Av någon anledning tog det mig just under ett år att börja läsa den och jag vet egentligen inte varför. Jag kan inte påstå att jag kan sådär otroligt mycket om The Rolling Stones men jag skulle vilja hävda att Jagger: Mannen, Myten, Musiken är en välskriven och relativt objektiv biografi.
Jag tror att det är näst intill omöjligt att inte vara partisk till det band man brinner för men Spitz lyckas ändå med att inte trycka ned sina åsikter i läsaren hals. Han återger en, vad jag uppfattar som, ärlig bild av Mick Jagger och Stones. Det är en välskriven och intressant bok om en hårdrockare som har levt ett allt annat än fräscht liv. Spitz fokuserar på Stones 1960- och 1970-tal och nämner egentligen bara 1980- talet till modern tid i förbifarten. Det är heller inte det som är det intressanta. Det är 1960-talet som man främst vill veta mer om.
Vissa kapitel är mer intressanta än andra men i överlag är det en jättebra biografi som jag kan rekommendera till alla Stonesfans.
Jag tror att det är näst intill omöjligt att inte vara partisk till det band man brinner för men Spitz lyckas ändå med att inte trycka ned sina åsikter i läsaren hals. Han återger en, vad jag uppfattar som, ärlig bild av Mick Jagger och Stones. Det är en välskriven och intressant bok om en hårdrockare som har levt ett allt annat än fräscht liv. Spitz fokuserar på Stones 1960- och 1970-tal och nämner egentligen bara 1980- talet till modern tid i förbifarten. Det är heller inte det som är det intressanta. Det är 1960-talet som man främst vill veta mer om.
Vissa kapitel är mer intressanta än andra men i överlag är det en jättebra biografi som jag kan rekommendera till alla Stonesfans.
April 27, 2012
Mark Spitzin "Jagger" (Otava, 2012) on sinänsä ihan kiinnostava, mutta kokonaisuutena vähän heppoinen elämäkerta vanhasta kunnon kumihuulesta. The Rolling Stones -fanille se ei tarjoa mitään uutta ja mielenkiintoista, vaan vanhat tutut tarinat huumeista, naisista ja muusta sen sellaisesta 1960- ja 1970-luvulta kerrotaan läpi uudemman kerran. Levytyksiä ja itse musiikkia käydään aika pintapuolisesti lävitse, ja kaiken lisäksi loppua kohden kirja alkaa muistuttaa enemmän esseekokoelmaa kuin kokonaisvaltaista elämäkertaa - Spitz keskittyy esimerkiksi Truman Capoten fiiliksiin vuoden 1972 Amerikan-kiertueen osaanottajana, Carly Simonin ja Jaggerin yhteistyöhön "You're So Vain" -kappeletta tehdessä tai laulajan roolisuoritukseen the Rutles -komediassa. No, ovathan nekin sinänsä ihan kiinnostavia aiheita, mutta suuren kokonaisuuden kannalta kuitenkin melko vähäpätöisiä sivuhuomioita.
August 16, 2017
Marc Spitzin näkökulma Jaggeriin on lähtökohdaltaan mielenkiintoinen. Hän ei erityisemmin nimittäin pidä Jaggerista. Niinpä tämä elämänkerta ei ole suinkaan hunajalla valeltu laulajan suuruuden hehkutuskirja. Ja se on hyvä se. Sisällöltään kirja kulkee suunnilleen kronologisesti pysähdellen laulajan elämän tärkeimpiin tapahtumiin. Läpi käydään musiikin lisäksi vaimot, elokuvat ja tärkeimmät sosiaaliset tapahtumat. Asioita ei kuvata millitarkan puisevasti ja usein Spitz tuo esiin oman näkemyksensä asioiden kulkuun niiden vaikutukseen The Rolling Stonesin historiaan ja menestykseen. Jaggerhan ei itse ole kirjoittanut tai kirjoituttanut itsestään virallista muistelmateosta. Tässäkään kirjassa ei juuri kuulla Mickin omaa ääntä ja sehän on tietenkin sääli. Ihan kelpo teos... vähän kuitenkin köykäinen minun makuun.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews