The Stones

by Philip Norman

Looks at the development and the music of the rock group The Rolling Stones. Philip Norman is also the author of "The Beatles".

Genres: Music, Biography, Nonfiction, History, Rock N Roll

373 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1984

Reviews

[Mainzer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best thing about the book is the daggers out for Mick Jagger. With much hilarity, Norman paints a portrait of the nastiest bastard you could imagine - the sort of predatory guy you wouldn't dare leave alone with your girlfriend for 5 minutes, or the kind of tight bastard who would inevitably leave the bar when it was his turn to buy the next round. Of course the real nasty member of the band was Brian Jones, a wife beating, child abandoning hedonistic fucker - yet he gets a fairly sympathetic ride from Norman.
Norman has a lovely Monty Python-esque sense of humour. Like his dealings with the two lesser Stones - Wyman and I forget the other ones name, Charlie I think - whom he basically presents throughout as two banal plant pots who by strange fate got placed on the edge of the historical stage.
I only read this book because there was absolutely nothing else to read, but it rocked my world.

[Tom Marcinko · Rating 4 out of 5]

Strange to think of rock 'n' roll as history now, to those of us who grew up with it. But there it is.

I gravitated toward this book thanks to the author's wonderful bio of John Lennon.

First graf:
~When the black man was alone and destitute, he played the blues. With a roof over his head, however leaky, he played rhythm and blues. The difference is as great as between the country and the city; between Southern cotton fields and Eastern ghettoes; between fatalistic old age and vigorous, upwardly mobile youth. It is the difference between a guitar powered only by its own mournful echo, and a guitar belligerently amplified, played with aggressive slides and swoops along the fretboard by a switchblade knife or broken bottle neck. It is the difference between bleak, dusty, desperate noontide and pulsing, pleasure-seeking night.~

~The smile of an r & b artist circa 1949 was the smile of someone expecting to be beaten up at any moment.~

~[Keith] still thinks [Scotty] Moore’s solo on Presley’s I’m Left, You’re Right, She’s gone the most exciting thing ever recorded. ‘I could never work out how he played it, and I still can’t. It’s such a wonderful thing that I almost don’t want to know.’~

~The first spark of originality in the group was struck by spontaneous interaction between Brian on his Gibson guitar and Keith on his Hofner. They would play, not as lead and subordinate rhythm, but as a duet, matching one another solo for solo, merging in a natural two-amp harmony, one zigzagging down the bass notes as the other climbed into treble register.~

~Not since the early Victorian age had young British men been seen with hair that hung down their necks and curled over their shirt collars, half obliterating their eyes and ears.~

June 1964: ~At the Stones’ next date—a ‘teen fair’ in San Antonio, Texas—they were required to play standing on the edge of a water tank full of trained seals.~

~‘I’ve never been hated by so many people I’ve never met as in Nebraska in the mid-Sixties,’ Keith says. ‘Everyone looked at you with a look that could kill. You could tell they just wanted to beat the shit out of you.’~

~To one reporter, Keith ingenuously showed the handgun he had bought in America, he said ‘as easily as candy floss.’~

~…through hand-in-glove co-operation with Scotland Yard, Fleet Street could pre-empt the process of the law.~

Mick: ~‘People should be punished for crimes. Not for the fears of society, which may be groundless.’~

~A church minister in Florida made the significant observation that, of 1,000 unmarried mothers in his parish, 984 had become pregnant while listening to rock music.~

[Caitlin Joy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into this book with an eensy bit of Stones prejudice (with the exception of my mild interest in their music). As extensive as my 60s knowledge is, I knew next to nothing about these guys, which is why I picked up the book in the first place. Also because I got it in Spain and it was the only book in the used bookstore that was in English.

I think Phil does a great job at capturing the underbelly of the late 60s, how its spoils turned sour for so many who participated in society’s upheaval… especially for those who got famous doing it. The power of nostalgia allows us to romanticize a time that, in all of its magical experimentation and progression, existed a natural lack of awareness of consequence. They just didn’t know. How could they know the effects of too much LSD- or that maybe you can’t take speed every morning with your coffee, or that there are no narcotics on the food pyramid? There were so many rules that needed to be broken. I think Phil characterizes that well, and doesn’t shy away from the nitty gritty.

It was eye opening to see the reality of the women involved as well- we have definitely created an idyllic image of what the life of a 60s groupie was like, thanks to many contributing factors (one of which being, of course, Penny Lane). This extends to girlfriends and wives.
But oh to be a muse! To be at the center of it all, giddy and glittering and sleeping with society’s highest degree of men. But Phillip opens our eyes to what the reality of orbiting these suns was like. One day you’re beautiful and full of promise in a Moroccan pool with Mick Jagger and Jimi Hendrix, and the next you’re homeless and addicted to heroin. The still blatant repressed state of women’s rights, financial freedom, and gender roles minimized even the most talented of women to mere accessories of starlit men. And when they no longer served their purpose as muse or royal counterpart, they were demoted and absolved of any respect or radiance of their own.

However, I also think his take came off as a recollection too bleak for its reality. There should be a balance. I don’t believe the 60s were all things dark and cynical- full of strictly death and degradation. But that’s the feeling I was left with after I turned that last page. I’m grateful for this “retelling” of the swinging 60s, but I’ll let it camp out amongst the other versions in my mind, not replace them.

[East Bay J · Rating 3 out of 5]

Published in 1984, Symphony For The Devil is Philip Norman's Stones bio and it ain't bad. It's not gossipy or snide and Norman manages to impart a sense of the wild ride of The Rolling Stones. His writing is solid and he keeps the story moving along at a brisk pace. For 396 pages, it's a quick read.

There isn't a great depth of detail here. I'm always curious about the recording process and any stories relating to that sort of thing, but this book sticks to general events. I think the recording of Exile On Main Street gets about a page, whereas I would be all about reading a whole book on that topic. This bio will appeal more to everyday folks more than nut job musicians.

Symphony For The Devil does tell the Stones story, though, quite adequately. Norman stands out to me as one of the better rock biographers. His Beatles bio, Shout, is quite good, as I recall. He seems to be removed enough from his subjects to take a clear and impartial view and he clearly does his research.

When I read this as a kid, I loved Keith Richard's response to questions during one of his drug trials regarding the relative state of undress of Marianne Faithful. "We are not old men, we are not worried about petty morals."

Another thing that stands out is the business about The Rolling Stones Rock 'n' Roll Circus. This special was filmed and never released because, supposedly, Jagger felt his Stones had been upstaged by The Who. You can buy the thing now on DVD and I recommend it. The Who definitely and dramatically upstaged The Rolling Stones, to be sure.

Not contained in this bio is the story of Charlie Watt's punching Mick Jagger in the face for calling him his drummer. Good ol' Charlie.

[Neil Kernohan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of all the books I've read about the Stones this one is particularly well written and researched, crucially with their co-operation. The author covers the main episodes in their career from the mid 60s until the early 80s, the early days of gigging in English town halls and fan mania, the celebrated drug busts and hedonism. There are particularly good chapters on the deterioration and death of Brian Jones in 1969 and the free Hyde Park concert two days later, the tragic Altamont concert later that year which signalled the end of 1960s hippy dreams, and the Stones' relocation to France because of tax reasons and their recording of Exile on Main St. The author focusses a lot on Jagger himself, the iconic stage performances, his micro control of the band's affairs, contractual disputes with managers and promoters, as well as his jet set lifestyle and complicated personal relationships with Marianne Faithfull and wife Bianca. The other Stones are mainly bit players in the ensuing drama. Charlie and Bill are portrayed as happy go lucky characters along for the ride and the references to Keith Richards mainly relate to his rivalry with Jones over the band's music and Anita Pallenberg, and his descent into heroin addiction by the early 70s. All in all this is a gripping read about a first class rock'n'roll band.

[Travis Kendall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the most detailed and well written book about The Stones ever written. Norman is a master writer and he spares no detail. What makes this interesting is that he doesn't glamorize The Stones. In this book they're human beings who are total self indulgent assholes one minute and really cool guys the next. In the end, this is a story of fame, money, drugs, booze, sex (don't miss the part about the Mars bar), rock 'n' roll, and the greatest rock band of all time.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great bunch of lads.

[Adrian Rowgało · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every single page of that book is an entertaining journey through the best days of rock&roll kings :)))

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is only after looking back in my Goodreads 'Poptastic' bookshelf that I find myself very, very 'stoned'.
My Rolling Stones catalogue includes:- Susan Hill's 'The Rolling Stones', Paul Trynka's 'Sympathy for the Devil', Philip Norman's 'Mick Jagger', Simon Goddard's 'Rollaresque', along with Keith Richards' 'Life', Terry Rawlings' 'Who Killed Christopher Robin: The Life & Death of Brian Jones', Alan Clayson's 'Charlie Watts', Ron Woods' 'Ronnie' and Marianne Faithfull's 'Memories, Dreams & Reflections'.
So, now I am back with Philip Norman with his 'Acclaimed Biography'. There is no doubt that Norman is an accomplished writer, with his years of journalism, but I have found 'The Stones' too focussed on Jagger and his Glimmer twin to the detriment of information on Jones, Wyman, Watts, Taylor and Wood, not to mention the likes of Ian Stewart and Nicky Hopkins.
I am told that nostalgia isn't what it used to be, but I am old enough to recall the poptastic '60's when my parents had a Milk Bar that had a loud Wurlitzer Juke Box. Whenever I hear the opening bars of 'The Last Time', 'It's all over now' or 'Little Red Rooster' the memories come flooding back. Many years later I worked as a roadie for the Stones when they played Wembley stadium and narrowly avoided a back-stage poker school with Bobby Keys.
If I had to choose, my recommendation would be Susan Hill's 'The Rolling Stones' and Keith's 'Life'.

[Kaupo Sempelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Raamat on hea, see mis kirjas on. Aga nii hiiglaslikku nähtust on ühte köitesse raske suruda. Väga põhjalik oli ülevaade Keithi ja Micki lapsepõlvest ja bändi esimesest kümnest aastast. Selgelt jäid tagaplaanile ülejäänud bändimehed ja seitsmekümnendate keskpaigast Rolling Stonesi 50. juubelini olid vaid põgusad fragmendid, mitte järjepidev lugu. Millest on kahju, bändi looming leiab kajastamist põgusalt ja paraku ei õnnestu autoril väga ka inimesi lahti muukida. Kui, siis vaid Keithi ja Micki, aga sedagi fragmentaarselt. V��ga põhjalikud olid ka mitme kontserdi kirjeldused, ent palju on siiski puudu. Kokkuvõtvalt oli tore lugemine, algus oli põhjalik ja aeglane ning, et lugu kaasaega välja tuua, oli lõppu kiiruga mõned peatükid lisaks visatud. Aga kuna rollingute lugu pole ju läbi, siis materjali, millest lisa toota, on kõvasti.

[Christophe · Rating 4 out of 5]

First, the quibbles : there is no bibliography and some factual errors have not been rectified in the revised editions. For instance, The Who didn't record It's All Over Now along with Under My Thumb, but The Last Time.
That said, the bio is an informative and entertaining read. Of course, the Stones are bastards (with the exception of Charlie Watts), yet, Norman's comments are often very funny. See, among others, the comparison between the Jagger and Lennon-Ono couples : "Would the kingly head Stone likewise end up ceremonially planting acorns for peace or screaming musique concrète from inside a paper bag?"

[Bobby24 · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read many books on the Stones and they are all good, i often think that there are only Two tue epic stories of Rock one is the Beatles the other is the Stones no other band or artist comes close to these two in terms of musical collision, The Epoch, the influence, origins, the people themselves and that surrounded them, shear musical brilliance ect.

I find these stories comparable to an explorer hitting the virgin beach of a foreign land or hacking his way through a jungle then finding himself staring at Machu Picchu. How did they get through to the other side when so many fell by the wayside?

[Jeroen Ds · Rating 3 out of 5]

All in all a decent book about the Stones. For me, the book contained too much information about Mick Jagger. A better title for the book would have been 'Mick Jagger and The Stones'. There's almost nothing about Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts or Mick Taylor. There's some stuff about Keith Richards but most of it is all Jagger stuff. I preferred Richards' biography 'Life' to get a better glimpse of the Sones.

[Richard Michael Hernandez · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked it a lot more than Shout, because mostly he didn't go off on uninteresting tangents about people around the band like in that book. It was entertaining and informative and I'd totally recommend to those interested in getting an overview of the Rolling Stones. I never knew about Brian Jones and his pivotal role and so it was informative to read about his monumental contribution to the essential formation of the band.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Norman is one of my fav rock writers and his work on The Beatles is phenomenal - it's his best actually. For what's here it's good but it felt like the book could easily have been twice as long. I was hoping for a bit more around the period of Sticky Fingers - Exile On Main Street - he moved through the early 70s quickly. Still a great history particularly of the 60s Stones.

[Kirsty Cameron · Rating 4 out of 5]

After putting it down for a good few years I finally got around to finishing this 😅. I feel like it gave a great insight into the world of rock and roll and was generally interesting to learn about the band! I'm now even more keen to read 'Shout' and start listening to a bit more of the Stones!

[Stephen · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I read a book about a musician or band, I fully expect some information about the actual music. How do you reduce hallmark albums to barely a page? Don't get me wrong, I like dirt as much as the next person, but I also like balance. This book is too much gossip, not enough substance.

[Craig Helliwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great insight into how horrendous the life of a major star must be.

Did enjoy learning more about the early life of the Stones, but did find many of the chapters too long which meant the book became a chore rather than a pleasure

[Stephen DiBartola · Rating 3 out of 5]

Originally published as "Sympathy for the Devil: The Rolling Stones Story"

[Patricia Torres-Burd · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book about the group, music, branding and creating a true corporation.

[David Gagen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written & researched biography covering mainly the 60s & 70s. Very detailed.

[Sam Worby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting but watching Gimme Shelter made clear how much of this relied on secondary sources. The author has a good line in snark however, so it’s pretty fun to read.

[Dignan107 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great insight into The Rolling Stones. Must read for any fan

[Blanche☮ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Skipped so many pages I got fed up😭

[Jeff Hackney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read many books on the Stones, this one is better written than most stylistically and does a good job portraying the times and the personalities (Norman, after all, was on the scene at the time and is an Englishman, which helps.) However, the music itself gets shorted at the expense of the text going into great detail about criminal and civil litigation. The narrative sort of ignores everything after '72, except Keith's '78 drug bust, which is disappointing. Also noted a few fact-check errors here and there (i.e. introduction says Voodoo Lounge tour was in '96 but tour covered '94'-95). 3.5 rounded to 4.

[Sean · Rating 2 out of 5]

In stark contrast to the authors Beatles book he clearly has no deep love for the Stones. There is little on the music and plenty on the myriad trials. A shocking dismissal of Sticky Fingers and the gloss over of Exile on Main Street sum up his thoughts on the music. The book skips along just fine because the history of the Stones is is so rich. The chaps themselves come across as selfish, greedy, and generally unlikeable. Perhaps Bill (other than that 'minor' controversy)' Charlie and Ron come out of this unscathed. Nothing too refreshing or original here.

[Jaga · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's just too much gossip for my liking. Many, many pages filled with detailed descriptions of trials, scandals, police raids.
Natomiast polska redakcja (a redaktorów jest kilku (!)), powinna się wstydzić, że wypuściła na rynek książkę z tyloma chochlikami (np. 32-dwulatek, New Oksford Street). A już całkowicie wnerwia mnie, że nigdzie w książce nie pojawia się pełna nazwa zespołu "The Rolling Stones", nawet w cytatach.

[Neil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zips through the seventies like they barely happened. Just as the Stones hit their musical stride Norman resorts to just chronicling Jagger's love life and Keith's drug busts. He's a good biographer but the lack of access to the Stones when superstars leaves this incomplete and unbalanced. (Commenting on 1985 copy.)

[Jonny Buck · Rating 5 out of 5]

By far my all time favorite book about the "boys". Written from the help of a roadie/dealer that Keith kept around. It shows how bad things did get at times as well as how they really felt about eachother and how they dealt with the murder at Altamont, wonderful!!!!

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

shit this guy can write and wowsers ! what a tail - lapped it up like the proverbial new born cat