The Rolling Stones

by Christopher Sandford

In 1962 Mick Jagger was a bright, well-scrubbed boy (planning a career in the civil service), while Keith Richards was learning how to smoke and to swivel a six-shooter. Add the mercurial Brian Jones (who'd been effectively run out of Cheltenham for theft, multiple impregnations and playing blues guitar) and the wryly opinionated Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts, and the potential was obvious. During the 1960s and 70s the Rolling Stones were the polarising figures in Britain, admired in some quarters for their flamboyance, creativity and salacious lifestyles, and reviled elsewhere for the same reasons. Confidently expected never to reach 30 they are now approaching their seventies and, in 2012, will have been together for 50 years. In The Rolling Stones, Christopher Sandford tells the human drama at the centre of the Rolling Stones story. Sandford has carried out interviews with those close to the Stones, family members (including Mick's parents), the group's fans and contemporaries - even examined their previously unreleased FBI files. Like no other book before The Rolling Stones will make sense of the rich brew of clever invention and opportunism, of talent, good fortune, insecurity, self-destructiveness, and of drugs, sex and other excess, that made the Stones who they are.

Genres: Music, Biography, Nonfiction, Rock N Roll

356 pages, Paperback

First published April 26, 2012

About the author

Christopher Sandford has published acclaimed biographies of Kurt Cobain, Steve McQueen, Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Keith Richards, Paul McCartney, and Roman Polanski. He has worked as a film and music writer and reviewer for over 20 years and frequently contributes to newspapers and magazines on both sides of the Atlantic. Rolling Stone has called him "the preeminent author in his field today."

His latest project, MASTERS OF MYSTERY (forthcoming November 2011, Palgrave Macmillan) explores Arthur Conan Doyle's and Harry Houdini's incredible friendship and fascination with Spiritualism.

Reviews

[Cathal Boylan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a good, if not exactly electric, bio of the one of the great bands of the last 60 years. Given the characters involved, and the long period covered, even a book of 450 pages is going to be necessarily fleeting in its review of the key events of the Stones' story, so much so that the author glosses over the Altamont tragedy by referring to the wealth of material covering it elsewhere. The second half of the book basically recounts their endless grind of world tours every five years or so, interspersed with occasional solo projects and recurring disagreements, but the parts are no match for the sum total, and eventually they forget their differences and regroup for the fun (money) of it. The book ends in 2012, but the Stones' touring didn't.

[Jeff Howells · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll pretty much read anything about the Rolling Stones, and have done ever since I first really got into them way back during their 25th anniversary & their Steel Wheels Album. Of the plethora of Stones books I've read, this is probably the best. Certainly the most detailed - and like the band themselves - a bit sleazy. It takes the story right up to their 50th anniversary and like all good biographies is a mix of well trodden anecdotes & fresh light on familiar stories.
As expected the real meat of the story is the relationship between Mick & 'Keef'. Brian gets a decent chunk of the book (including an account of his final hours) but Charlie, Bill, Mick Taylor & Ronnie are very much bit part players (Whilst Charlie understandingly comes across as a saint, Bill is exclusively portrayed, again with probable good reason, as a perv).
Did the book change my views on the Stones, either collectively or individually? No it didn't. Did I learn new stuff about the 'Greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World'™ ? Yes I certainly did.

[Ginni · Rating 3 out of 5]

Could it be that I have finally read the Stones' story enough times in various guises?!! This was OK - not an authorised biography - and rather lazily written. Got the feeling that Sandford was just recycling material from his own books, and other biogs and autobiogs, in order to sell this one on the back of '50 years of the Rolling Stones.' He's also quite unpleasant about people....

[Rachel Louise Atkin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book when it first came out because I had an intense obsession with The Rolling Stones. It’s taken me three months to read cos hardbacks are annoying to carry around but am glad I’ve finished it now. Sandford really doesn’t shy away from all the horrific details of the Stones’ personal lives and behaviours and I actually dislike the band more than I did going into it because they are a bunch of pricks. I still love Charlie though because he is an absolute ray of sunshine.

Yea if you want an honest portrayal of the Stones career from their early days to being one of the greatest bands in the world, gritty details and all, this is for you.

[Julianne Lennard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmmm... I was hesitant to read a biography (especially unauthorised, however, I hoped it may be juicier or perhaps I could learn new facts or conspiracy theories regarding the band (not just a lot of unfounded personal opinions) however, after watching virtually every authorised, unauthorised and simply made up stories about the band that has now become "The Greatest Rock'n'Roll Band" in the world, I simply couldn't resist.
I am not yet a believer in the sincerity of this publication - to Stones fans or 'non believers' or any person who may be interested in such an Historic Band... Is it to simply make a quick buck on anything with "stones 50 years" written on it, which is my personal analysis of the book thus far.
However, having made the above statement, I have only finished engrossing myself in the First Chapter 'Connection'. I am not necessarily impressed with this book, HOWEVER, it is 5:12am in Australia and I have been disembowelling this chapter with a cheeky and uniquely interested pleasure.
Unfortunately, being 'unauthorised', Christopher Sandford can virtually say what he likes, misquote and certainly overstate stories to sell his book. Sections of this book (so far) are fantastic and funny to read bringing a smile to my face in the early am hours here Down Under. Other segments can be deduced as contrary, out of order (date) which is very irritating, even to me (and avid stones 'nut') for want of a better description... Therefore, I am able to decipher this apparent jumbled Chapter. I completely understand that given the 'Stones' have been around 50+ years now, it is nigh on impossible to squeeze the background introduction into one chapter (which by the way is only 19 pages long) so I can't understand why the Author even attemtped. Dates are jumbled, Keith Richards is 'him' then 'Keith' again, then back to 'Richards' etc. Besides this as I have stated, dates and facts tend to be jumbled and messy. There is far too much heresay, specifically with 'Keith' being quoted; "Around 1960, it's true, Richards had embarked on a path that was to deviate appreciably from (your interpretation) from this background of service and asceticism". Any person with a reasonable vocabulary can deduce that this makes little sense. If Keith was so bound by his apparent reported background of service and 'asceticism' how does deviating from this 'appreciably' create a deviated path? It's almost contrary, when the definition of asceticism is an individual who is severly self disciplined, generally religiously.. so let's call his religion music... to then 'deviate appreciably' from this supposed path he was embarking on was a calculated risk that I think most people would agree, has paid off.
I think you have incorrectly confused the whole Keith story. To Deviate appreciably is to take a high risk for a greater reward, perhaps you could interpret his deviance as that. Not bagging him for then being a ratbag (Aussie Slang). Sandford, C, does however continually redeem himself when reading on as he goes on to state that Richards had obviously musical abilities even prior to his early 1960's attendance at Dartford Tech.
In summary, so far, I am finding this book interesting, frustration, and yet it irritates me that someone in the younger generation who would now be discovering this Empire known as "The Rolling Stones" will more than likely find this book too difficult to follow without requiring constantly referal to other books, interviews or documenaries... Which clearly defeats the purpose of reading a book. I do not understand your target market. Clearly it is for the person who already knows everything about 'The Stones', and has been useless for any additional items of interest or knowledge on the Band, (I will stand corrected if I learn something new prior to finishing the book). Together with my frustration, when using, to the point of exhaustion infrequently used phrases with no obivous interpretation as to the differences between then and now, for example just how much in dollar terms these days these boys were making per gig, where the younger generation these days would require a decent brain to comprehend. You also tend to use abbreviations seemingly wherever possble.
I find this diversion from old to new and vice-versa frustrating, and to repeat myself, I believe would turn younger people (teens - 20 somethings) off this book, which does no justice to the Band.
Perhaps you were directed that this book required 'cutting' to a certain number of words.. I DON'T KNOW, but the inconsistency with such lovely writing, to these horrible slang abbreviations is frustrating.
Since I've stayed up all night contemplating this, I'll alter my star rating for you! I'll stay in touch,
Julianne Lennard

[Ginni · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a long-standing Stones fan, I was looking forward to this. On reading the introduction, I realised this was an 'unauthorised' biography, and it soon became clear that the author was not going to steer clear of the controversial elements of the Stones' long and sensational (in all its meanings) career. The style was a raunchy pop journalese that grated rather; there were also coy euphemisms for the juicier activities of various group members. Sadly, the idol of my teenage years, Mick, came off rather badly....and Keith emerges as the unsung hero in many ways, totally dedicated to the blues roots of the band, if rather more aggressive than I had hitherto known. The money-grabbing features of the final tours I knew about already from reading Bill German's 'Under their thumb.'
Anyway, a enjoyable read; I had a few 'really???' moments, but Sandford was honest in his critique of the music, and I would say he is a genuine fan of that, at least. I may go on and read his individual biographies of Mick and Keith, but this one does bring us bang up to date to 2012. Long may they continue to be 'the greatest rock and roll band in the world.'

[Brendan Newport · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read the 2021 reprint of the 2012 edition. So we get up to the release of Live in Texas in December 2011. Plenty more of Rolling Stones history to go, though most of that concerns the seemingly endless cycle of lucrative tours, and of course Charlie Watts sad passing away (my favourite 'Stone).

I don't own a Rolling Stones album and never have. Never been to one of their shows. My parents owned a copy of the Paint it Black 7" single from 1966, and growing-up that was one of my favourite vinyls I played regularly. I though drifted towards The Beatles via Elvis and then to Abba, and then British prog-rock. So I bypassed The Stones altogether, though I would have likely become an enthusiastic fan if Jagger and Richards had made sure that Mick Taylor had a living income and stayed in-the-band.

Nonetheless I was already pretty clued-up about the key moments in The Rolling Stones history; the band was rarely out of the papers in the UK in the 1970s, though for five years in the 1980s ('84-89) they dropped away.

Sandford's research reveals way more than I even suspected. We might think of the fictional Spinal Tap as being the ultimate in rock-and-roll excess, but The Rolling Stones easily exceeded anything ever imagined for 'Tap. Sandford writes in a wonderful sardonic manner, perhaps the only way that the history of the Stones could ever be approached. Consequently the book had numerous laugh-out-loud moments, though these drop away as with the turn-of-the-century, Mick and Keith, now basically in charge of a huge corporate juggernaut, make an effort to keep the negative Press stories to a minimum.

Before that takes hold though we have decades of proper sex, drugs, drinking and rock-and-roll, with everything cranked-up to '11'. That Richards is still alive is a mystery of medical science in itself, yet he prospered. The 'other two', namely Charlie and Bill, don't get a great deal of coverage, though Watts made a huge effort to have a normal live, despite a few years of succumbing to drinks and drugs. Falling down the steps of his wine cellar saw him determined to detox, and he managed that before sadly leaving us aged 80.

Bill though, with his obsessions with taking photos of topless females, his pre-marriage relationship with Mandy Smith (which should have seen him ailed for CSA) and his overall bed-hopping tendencies was perhaps the worst of the band. Even so he mellowed as the years past.

Brian Jones of course gets coverage. Before being kicked out of the band and his untimely death though, it is clear that his contribution was minimal. He was a bit hopeless as a songwriter, though an innovator with different instruments like the sitar and Mellotron. Overall though, despite being a founder member (and the one who named the band) Jones had little influence.

Mick Taylor, his eventual, though brief, replacement, should have been a major influence. That the Stones lost such a fabulous musician simply on the grounds of not paying him enough to get by is one of the enduring black marks against their history. It's unlikely though that the Stones was ever a good enough vehicle for Taylor's ability, but staying with the band would have given him the confidence and financial assurance to have got a decent solo career going. Richards and Jagger robbed the world of what was probably the finest British guitarist of his generation; when he left the Stones he was near-penniless, had acquired a drug dependency and his confidence was shot.

Despite these and other 'serious' matters, as mentioned, Sandford's cheery writing makes this history a hoot to read. I'll finish with one example;

.'..later on the California leg of the tour.
Suddenly Bill Graham stuck his head round the door and said, "The police are here!" We all panicked and threw our dope in the bog. Then Sting, Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland walked in.'

There's an Index (always good to see) Chapter Notes and a Bibliography.

[Akila Maithripala · Rating 5 out of 5]

Times was right when they called this the 'definitive biography'. The details and stories Chris has put in to the story is amazing. Almost like reading a fictional novel, but hey, so was the Stones life style back then.

Chris has debunked and also validated many fan-theories and opinions with proper facts, I guess it provides an equal ground for all personnel associated with the Stones (and Stones themselves) throughout the years. The way he delivers the story gives a RnR vibe too, contrary to reading an encyclopedia, 'Fifty Years' is fun, jaw dropping at times, and importantly emits that cool vibe of the 60s-80s between the lines. The vibe changes after the hiatus of the late 80s and the new begging of the 89 tours. Felt like the story was rushed after the 90s, but guess it was in a way true to lives of the Stones themselves too.

The story stops at 2012, abiding to the name 50 years. But this being 2022, Stones still roll on at their 60th year in concert, and guess there's enough material for an update on the book. Fingers crossed.

[Alan Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well researched and in the main an enjoyable and informative read.
Sandford does not pull any punches when describing the early days of the band and the excesses that the enjoyed. In some ways a reader may like them a little less after reading than before. It was originally published as a 50 year history but a new chapter has been added which brings their story up to date.

[Diego · Rating 4 out of 5]

Treta, fofoca e chinelagem? Sim, por favor

[Steven Vinnicombe · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well written interesting book covering the early days through to the 2000’s .
An excellent informative book about the Stones.

[Kamil Świątkowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Right amount of dirty details - interesting but not discouraging. Still having some news that might surprise you. It's a good read.

[Dave Ross · Rating 5 out of 5]

Currently re-reading .