What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rolling Stones: The Biography
From the award-winning, bestselling author of classic histories of the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, a groundbreaking reckoning with the world's greatest rock 'n' roll band
All great music is a threat.
What left is there to say about The Rolling Stones? A hell of a lot, it turns out.
Bob Spitz has brought his indefatigable energy and five decades of experiences in the fields and hollows of rock 'n' roll to bear on his five-year journey to reexamine one of popular music's greatest stories. There are myriad revisions to the conventional narrative which underscore just how in control of that narrative the band has been up to now--small example: no, Muddy Waters was not mopping the floors at Chess Records when the Stones showed up. But in a larger sense, as with the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, Spitz's greatest gift is for the big picture. He knows where the magic is, and why it is. He is as clear-eyed a connoisseur of the show business, the spectacle and the collateral damage of this whirlwind as anyone alive, and that lucid gaze pierces a lot of incrusted bullshit, but the ultimate goal is to connect with a creative force whose power shows no signs of fading, over sixty years on.
At its heart the story is about two boys, Mick and Keith, and their unique, fraught, alchemical bond, often tested, never sundered. The Glimmer Twins. The bandmates, like Charlie Watts, who found their groove in relation to this double star made the trip intact, while those who struggled, like Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, were chewed up and spit out. This is a story with many dark corners, including a surprising number of deaths. But whether Jagger and Richards sold their souls to the devil is at the crossroads for blues greatness or just squeezed their heroes for every drop of inspiration, in the end their connection to their music and to each other put them in a category of one, where they very much remain.
All great music is a threat.
What left is there to say about The Rolling Stones? A hell of a lot, it turns out.
Bob Spitz has brought his indefatigable energy and five decades of experiences in the fields and hollows of rock 'n' roll to bear on his five-year journey to reexamine one of popular music's greatest stories. There are myriad revisions to the conventional narrative which underscore just how in control of that narrative the band has been up to now--small example: no, Muddy Waters was not mopping the floors at Chess Records when the Stones showed up. But in a larger sense, as with the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, Spitz's greatest gift is for the big picture. He knows where the magic is, and why it is. He is as clear-eyed a connoisseur of the show business, the spectacle and the collateral damage of this whirlwind as anyone alive, and that lucid gaze pierces a lot of incrusted bullshit, but the ultimate goal is to connect with a creative force whose power shows no signs of fading, over sixty years on.
At its heart the story is about two boys, Mick and Keith, and their unique, fraught, alchemical bond, often tested, never sundered. The Glimmer Twins. The bandmates, like Charlie Watts, who found their groove in relation to this double star made the trip intact, while those who struggled, like Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, were chewed up and spit out. This is a story with many dark corners, including a surprising number of deaths. But whether Jagger and Richards sold their souls to the devil is at the crossroads for blues greatness or just squeezed their heroes for every drop of inspiration, in the end their connection to their music and to each other put them in a category of one, where they very much remain.
704 pages, Hardcover
Published April 21, 2026
About the author
Bob Spitz
18 books170 followersBob Spitz is the award-winning author of The Beatles, a New York Times best seller, as well as seven other nonfiction books and a screenplay. He has represented Bruce Springsteen and Elton John in several capacities. His articles appear regularly in magazines and newspapers, including The New York Times Magazine; The Washington Post; Rolling Stone; and O, The Oprah Magazine, among others.
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
June 10, 2026
4.5 stars
"[The Rolling Stones] were pumped, and they let it rip. They whipped that audience into a frenzy, playing a blistering set - one great song after another without letup for forty-five minutes. When they tore into 'Route 66,' they hit one [lyrical] line extra hard - 'Flagtstaff, Arizona, don't forget Winona, Kingman, Barstow . . . San Bernardino.' When the kids heard their town name-checked, they went ape****, the screams were deafening. Several girls broke for the stage and were dragged away by sheriff's deputies. Other fans, in a hysterical swoon, had to be sedated by medical staff." -- synopsis of the very first Stones concert on U.S. soil (5 June 1964 in San Bernardino, California), on page 132
Author Spitz has previously essayed some thorough books on 60's-era rock music titans such as the Beatles (read it about 20 years ago - very good) and Bob Dylan (coincidentally purchased it earlier this year, but still unread by me) so perhaps its no great surprise or a bit predictable that his latest in that unofficial sort of series is The Rolling Stones: The Biography. One of those rare 'British Invasion' groups that sustained a career beyond the 1970's and/or their ten-year mark - wracking my brain, I can only think of the Kinks and the Moody Blues as being in similar company - the London quartet formed in June 1962 and released their first single (a cover of Chuck Berry's 'Come On,' for a nice bit of trivia) exactly one year later. Although initially acolytes of American blues acts like Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters, the boys soon segued into their own brand of rock and roll and stormed through that international door kicked open by the Beatles to achieve multiple hit songs / albums / concert tours across the globe. The bulk of the narrative covers the years 1962 to 1982, with only the final 50 pages detailing 1982 to present day. As likely expected, the bad boy 'Glimmer Twins' Mick Jagger and Keith Richards - who have been as close as blood brothers, but yet sometimes the worst of enemies - undeniably get the most attention in print, owing to their success in songwriting, the drug use, the romantic dalliances, and did I mention the drug use?😉 As a devout Stones fan since high school - my very first compact disc purchased was Sticky Fingers, their hit 1971 album with 'Brown Sugar,' 'Wild Horses,' and the under-appreciated strutting classic 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking?' - I'm not sure this book presented much new and/or startling information on the group, yet it was still nicely thorough in covering their ups and downs, and deserves to share shelf space with earlier works like Joel Selvin's Altamont and Rich Cohen's The Sun & The Moon & The Rolling Stones.
"[The Rolling Stones] were pumped, and they let it rip. They whipped that audience into a frenzy, playing a blistering set - one great song after another without letup for forty-five minutes. When they tore into 'Route 66,' they hit one [lyrical] line extra hard - 'Flagtstaff, Arizona, don't forget Winona, Kingman, Barstow . . . San Bernardino.' When the kids heard their town name-checked, they went ape****, the screams were deafening. Several girls broke for the stage and were dragged away by sheriff's deputies. Other fans, in a hysterical swoon, had to be sedated by medical staff." -- synopsis of the very first Stones concert on U.S. soil (5 June 1964 in San Bernardino, California), on page 132
Author Spitz has previously essayed some thorough books on 60's-era rock music titans such as the Beatles (read it about 20 years ago - very good) and Bob Dylan (coincidentally purchased it earlier this year, but still unread by me) so perhaps its no great surprise or a bit predictable that his latest in that unofficial sort of series is The Rolling Stones: The Biography. One of those rare 'British Invasion' groups that sustained a career beyond the 1970's and/or their ten-year mark - wracking my brain, I can only think of the Kinks and the Moody Blues as being in similar company - the London quartet formed in June 1962 and released their first single (a cover of Chuck Berry's 'Come On,' for a nice bit of trivia) exactly one year later. Although initially acolytes of American blues acts like Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters, the boys soon segued into their own brand of rock and roll and stormed through that international door kicked open by the Beatles to achieve multiple hit songs / albums / concert tours across the globe. The bulk of the narrative covers the years 1962 to 1982, with only the final 50 pages detailing 1982 to present day. As likely expected, the bad boy 'Glimmer Twins' Mick Jagger and Keith Richards - who have been as close as blood brothers, but yet sometimes the worst of enemies - undeniably get the most attention in print, owing to their success in songwriting, the drug use, the romantic dalliances, and did I mention the drug use?😉 As a devout Stones fan since high school - my very first compact disc purchased was Sticky Fingers, their hit 1971 album with 'Brown Sugar,' 'Wild Horses,' and the under-appreciated strutting classic 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking?' - I'm not sure this book presented much new and/or startling information on the group, yet it was still nicely thorough in covering their ups and downs, and deserves to share shelf space with earlier works like Joel Selvin's Altamont and Rich Cohen's The Sun & The Moon & The Rolling Stones.
June 1, 2026
This biography follows The Rolling Stones from Mick Jagger and Keith Richards’ chance meeting in 1961 through the Hackney Diamonds album and tour in 2024. For longtime fans, much of the band’s story will be familiar, but Spitz digs into the details and context in a way that kept me engaged. Whether or not he gets the details right, I have no idea. He chronicles the band’s meteoric rise, the endless touring, the legendary feuds, the revolving door of women (or girls) in their lives, the drug-fueled years, and the constant cycle of arrests, rehab stints, and scandals that somehow never brought them down.
Spitz captures both the swagger and the vulnerability of the band members, especially as they navigated decades of friendship, creative differences, loss, and aging in the public eye. The Stones have endured the deaths and departures of key band members, including Brian Jones, Ian Stewart, and Charlie Watts, yet their core identity has remained remarkably intact. Keith Richards’ unmistakable bluesy riffs and Mick Jagger’s electrifying stage presence and physicality are at the heart of the band, even as the concerts have evolved into grandiose stage productions.
The book also highlights the band’s amazing longevity. More than sixty years after they began, The Rolling Stones continue to attract fans across generations. Even Mick and Keith (the Glimmer twins) seem surprised by how long the journey has lasted. Reading this left me wondering the same thing many fans do: now in their eighties, how much longer can they keep going? If their history is any indication, I wouldn’t bet against them.
Spitz captures both the swagger and the vulnerability of the band members, especially as they navigated decades of friendship, creative differences, loss, and aging in the public eye. The Stones have endured the deaths and departures of key band members, including Brian Jones, Ian Stewart, and Charlie Watts, yet their core identity has remained remarkably intact. Keith Richards’ unmistakable bluesy riffs and Mick Jagger’s electrifying stage presence and physicality are at the heart of the band, even as the concerts have evolved into grandiose stage productions.
The book also highlights the band’s amazing longevity. More than sixty years after they began, The Rolling Stones continue to attract fans across generations. Even Mick and Keith (the Glimmer twins) seem surprised by how long the journey has lasted. Reading this left me wondering the same thing many fans do: now in their eighties, how much longer can they keep going? If their history is any indication, I wouldn’t bet against them.
May 9, 2026
5 stars- I hope you can find it. Only one copy at my local Barnes
I sure loved this detailed, balanced, and wildly enjoyable biography of The Rolling Stones.
I’ve read Keith Richards’ autobiography and Rich Cohen’s excellent The Sun & The Moon & The Rolling Stones, but Bob Spitz’s new book feels like the big, sweeping Stones biography I was hoping for. It covers the band’s full 60-year run with energy, detail, and a real sense of proportion.
The early chapters are especially strong: the formation of the band, the Crawdaddy Club shows, the rise and tragic fall of Brian Jones, and the Stones’ transformation from London blues devotees into global rock icons. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall at those early gigs.
Spitz gives equal attention to the many phases of the band’s history, and the book never feels like it is racing past the later years just to linger on the chaos of the 1960s and ’70s. He doesn’t shy away from the sex, drugs, and rock and roll, but this is far less salacious than his Led Zeppelin biography. After reading that one, I felt like I needed a shower and a trip to the confessional.
I’ve always been a Keith guy, but I came away from this book with more respect for Mick Jagger: his discipline, ambition, intelligence, and sheer ability to keep the machine moving. As for Keith Richards, how he survived and came out the other side is anyone’s guess.
I’m a lifelong Stones fan, I’ve seen them live many times, and they always deliver. This book does too.
Highly recommended for any Rolling Stones fan.
Format note: The hardcover has great pictures, and the audio edition is excellent.
I sure loved this detailed, balanced, and wildly enjoyable biography of The Rolling Stones.
I’ve read Keith Richards’ autobiography and Rich Cohen’s excellent The Sun & The Moon & The Rolling Stones, but Bob Spitz’s new book feels like the big, sweeping Stones biography I was hoping for. It covers the band’s full 60-year run with energy, detail, and a real sense of proportion.
The early chapters are especially strong: the formation of the band, the Crawdaddy Club shows, the rise and tragic fall of Brian Jones, and the Stones’ transformation from London blues devotees into global rock icons. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall at those early gigs.
Spitz gives equal attention to the many phases of the band’s history, and the book never feels like it is racing past the later years just to linger on the chaos of the 1960s and ’70s. He doesn’t shy away from the sex, drugs, and rock and roll, but this is far less salacious than his Led Zeppelin biography. After reading that one, I felt like I needed a shower and a trip to the confessional.
I’ve always been a Keith guy, but I came away from this book with more respect for Mick Jagger: his discipline, ambition, intelligence, and sheer ability to keep the machine moving. As for Keith Richards, how he survived and came out the other side is anyone’s guess.
I’m a lifelong Stones fan, I’ve seen them live many times, and they always deliver. This book does too.
Highly recommended for any Rolling Stones fan.
Format note: The hardcover has great pictures, and the audio edition is excellent.
May 19, 2026
The Rolling Stones: A Biography runs 602 pages but could've been twice as long for my satisfaction. For instance, had Spitz included a chapter alone on the cover designs for Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, and Tattoo You, I'd've been all in (none of those covers gets a mention, an especially flagrant oversight in the case of the first of those). For me, the more seemingly trivial, the better. How happy was I to learn it was Murray the K who recommended the band cover the Valentinos' "It's All Over Now"? Very.
Spitz allots the existing real estate wisely: about 63% covers the 1960s, and just sixty pages take us from 1978's Some Girls into the summer of 2024. In the story of the Stones, there's a clear narrative shift in 1969 with the firing and death of Brian Jones and the Altamont fiasco, and Spitz is exceptionally good on these. The 1970's big focus is on drug use, especially Keith's, and run-ins with the law, especially Keith's. You sort of get the feeling Keith's heroin suppliers get more of the book's ink than do Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts. (Under the heading 'Richards, Keith' in the book's index you'll find drug addiction of, drug arrests/detoxes of, drug trials of, drug use by, and drugs affect his performances.)
If you've read Spitz's other rock bios, including those on the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, you know errors crop up. I caught several here, and I can't help but wonder about the ones I didn't catch. One example: he writes how Mick Taylor was "making his first U.S. appearance with the Stones" at the June 3, 1972, gig in Vancouver. Now, I know that Bob Spitz is well aware that not only was Taylor's first Stones show in the U.S. two and a half years earlier, it also wasn't in Canada.
The best upshot about The Rolling Stones: A Biography is it's had me spending lots of time with their vast catalog, even Dirty Work.
Spitz allots the existing real estate wisely: about 63% covers the 1960s, and just sixty pages take us from 1978's Some Girls into the summer of 2024. In the story of the Stones, there's a clear narrative shift in 1969 with the firing and death of Brian Jones and the Altamont fiasco, and Spitz is exceptionally good on these. The 1970's big focus is on drug use, especially Keith's, and run-ins with the law, especially Keith's. You sort of get the feeling Keith's heroin suppliers get more of the book's ink than do Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts. (Under the heading 'Richards, Keith' in the book's index you'll find drug addiction of, drug arrests/detoxes of, drug trials of, drug use by, and drugs affect his performances.)
If you've read Spitz's other rock bios, including those on the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, you know errors crop up. I caught several here, and I can't help but wonder about the ones I didn't catch. One example: he writes how Mick Taylor was "making his first U.S. appearance with the Stones" at the June 3, 1972, gig in Vancouver. Now, I know that Bob Spitz is well aware that not only was Taylor's first Stones show in the U.S. two and a half years earlier, it also wasn't in Canada.
The best upshot about The Rolling Stones: A Biography is it's had me spending lots of time with their vast catalog, even Dirty Work.
May 9, 2026
For someone that is not a Rolling Stones aficionado, the latest biography by Bob Spitz does a very good job educating the reader about rock's most enduring act. You probably need to be a major Stones fan to love this book (my fandom is casual). As such, I think it's good, but the story limps to the finish line.
Much like his books on The Beatles and Led Zeppelin, Spitz is in top form when detailing the creative process. I enjoyed getting the background to how "Satisfaction," "Sympathy for the Devil," and "Gimme Shelter" came to be ("Gimme Shelter" making my jaw drop at the end). The story of their climb to the top and the notorious Altamont concert are well-told. I like that Spitz doesn't waste time with prolonged background stories. The accountant in me also likes reading about the band's business dealings. Thankfully, Spitz does not give nearly as much ink to the drug-taking proclivities of the Stones' management like he did writing about Brian Epstein and Peter Grant.
But drugs are a big part of the book. After Altamont, the drug excess of Keith Richards overwhelms this book. To tell the full story of The Rolling Stones makes this unavoidable. That doesn't make it compelling. After recent reads about rock and roll drug consumption, another story about drugs wound up being a bore.
I'll leave it up to the aficionados to point out if Spitz made factual errors about the band as they did with the Zeppelin and Beatles books. I do know, contra Spitz, the FBI's COINTELPRO operation was not headed by former US president Herbert Hoover, and Jimi Hendrix was not British.
That said, I doubt you'll find a more definitive account of The Rolling Stones, so for that reason alone, it gets my recommendation.
Much like his books on The Beatles and Led Zeppelin, Spitz is in top form when detailing the creative process. I enjoyed getting the background to how "Satisfaction," "Sympathy for the Devil," and "Gimme Shelter" came to be ("Gimme Shelter" making my jaw drop at the end). The story of their climb to the top and the notorious Altamont concert are well-told. I like that Spitz doesn't waste time with prolonged background stories. The accountant in me also likes reading about the band's business dealings. Thankfully, Spitz does not give nearly as much ink to the drug-taking proclivities of the Stones' management like he did writing about Brian Epstein and Peter Grant.
But drugs are a big part of the book. After Altamont, the drug excess of Keith Richards overwhelms this book. To tell the full story of The Rolling Stones makes this unavoidable. That doesn't make it compelling. After recent reads about rock and roll drug consumption, another story about drugs wound up being a bore.
I'll leave it up to the aficionados to point out if Spitz made factual errors about the band as they did with the Zeppelin and Beatles books. I do know, contra Spitz, the FBI's COINTELPRO operation was not headed by former US president Herbert Hoover, and Jimi Hendrix was not British.
That said, I doubt you'll find a more definitive account of The Rolling Stones, so for that reason alone, it gets my recommendation.
May 7, 2026
I just spent 600+ pages with the Stones, it was fun and fuckin' scary and a pretty groovy trip down a road a lot of us experienced in real-time ... It is six hundred pages of remarkably irresponsible human behavior and a lot of the people involved still live - utterly amazing ... If you're ready for the whole story - the wicked, nasty, graphic tale of the incredible soundtrack of our lives - this is the book ... It's expertly done, in remembrance of why we dig the Stones
June 17, 2026
While "The Rolling Stones: The Biography" didn't cover much new ground for me, I found it very entertaining. Bob Spitz is no stranger to rock and roll bios, having previously written about the Beatles and Led Zeppelin. What he brings to the story of Mick, Keith & Co. is an enthusiastic appreciation for their body of work and personal tales, real and mythical. This would be an excellent start for any new fan looking to explore the history of the Stones. Older fans should note that the last 30 years are given short shrift. So if you want a deep dive on anything past Steel Wheels you will be disappointed. It is like a rollercoaster where the drops and speed decrease as you get near the end, but you still want to get back on and do it again.
May 3, 2026
4.5 as compelling as the other band bios Spitz has written.
May 30, 2026
I saw this biography of The Rolling Stones, and I thought it would be a fun one to listen to. I grew up with the Stones with their first hit being when I was in elementary school. My most memorable Stones's song is "Satisfaction." Well, unfortunately I was disappointed. The biography is very comprehensive with the various band members coming and going from the group, but there really wasn't much of sense of fun or excitement that you normally think of when it comes to this group. My God, Mick Jagger, is now 82, and he is still performing and looks good while doing it. This is a premiere rock 'n roll band, but the book does not do them justice. I'm sorry, Bob Spitz, but I wish there were a few more juicy details about this extraordinary band.
Want to Read
May 4, 2026Good review at the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/book...
(Paywalled. As always, I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers)
Excerpt:
"Keith Richards and Mick Jagger built the Rolling Stones out of endless hours of practice. The carnival of excess would come later."
One of the great bands in R&R history. Amazingly, they are still going strong. But: 704 pages!
I'll likely take a look, when the library gets copies. And then skim.
https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/book...
(Paywalled. As always, I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers)
Excerpt:
"Keith Richards and Mick Jagger built the Rolling Stones out of endless hours of practice. The carnival of excess would come later."
One of the great bands in R&R history. Amazingly, they are still going strong. But: 704 pages!
I'll likely take a look, when the library gets copies. And then skim.
May 18, 2026
the story jumped from 1990 to 2025. missing 35 years of the story. I for one am very dissapointed.
May 4, 2026
It is a bit presumptuous for Bob Spitz to claim to have written "THE" biography of a something as big and complicated as the Rolling Stones. Although, he has previously written "THE" biographies of Led Zeppelin and of the Beatles, so I guess he is not bothered by being presumptuous. (I did get a kick out of the fact that even he had to admit that his biography of Bob Dylan was simply "A" biography. No one is getting all of Dylan into one book)
This is a very well-done biography. He starts with Keith and Mick meeting on a train platform in 1961 and he takes the story up to their most recent tour in 2024. (Who am I to call it their last tour?)
As with most entertainers, the most interesting part of the story is the beginning. The Stones, Brian Jones, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Bill Wyman and a rotating group of drummers were living in a disgusting walk-up apartment barely getting by on what they earned doing gigs in the few blues clubs in London. They were part of a free-floating group of musicians who were drunk on black American music. Eric Clapton, Pete Townsend, Jack Bruce, Jimmy Page and the rest of the future British Rock stars where all in the mix.
Brian Jones was the moving force that put the Rolling Stones together in July of 1962. Originally Mick and Keith looked up to him. He was a better musician and knew more of the music they were after. By 1964 they were the second hottest band in London, after the Beatles.
As the band took off, Mick became the center of attention and Keith became the most important musician. Spitz shows the slow slide of Brian Jones. He was insecure and very difficult. As the Stones became massive international stars, he gradually alienated everyone in the band. He stopped participating with the band. On June 8,1969 the band members fired him. On July 3, 1969, he drowned in his backyard swimming pool.
The story from that point on becomes a classic rock and roll story. There are massive amounts of drugs. At some point every member of the band, except Bill Wyman, was addicted to heroin. Their lives were rounds of holding up in a studio for months to write and record the new album. Going on a tour to promote the album while dealing with riots and drug arrests and then time off to get in trouble.
Spitz does an excellent job showing how insane their world was. He shows how the tragedy at Altamont was driven by carelessness and a feeling that everything will just work out. It takes a lot of drugs to agree that it is a good idea to have Hell's Angels handle security at a free 300,000-person concert.
The Stones, Mick and Keith in particular, were not cruel. They were simply stone-cold egomaniacs. They were surrounded by drug overdose deaths, abandoned children, injured concert goers, people going to jail, drug induced mental illness, suicide, women assaulted and abused, multiple arrests and jail sentences. Their money and fame protected them from any of the consequences. They bought off cops. They had friendly rehabs when they needed to clean up for a court hearing. They were surrounded by people who would do anything to be near them.
In a rare moment of honesty, Keith once admitted, "The Rolling Stones destroy people at an alarming rate."
Sorry, I started preaching and wandered away from the book. It is an excellent biography. Spitz explains the crazy business machinations. He gives a good feel of what it was like in the recording studio. He follows the confusing and convoluted love lives of the band. This is a very good biography of the Rolling Stones.
The best summary of this book is the line from The Great Gadsby.
"They were careless people--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness."
This is a very well-done biography. He starts with Keith and Mick meeting on a train platform in 1961 and he takes the story up to their most recent tour in 2024. (Who am I to call it their last tour?)
As with most entertainers, the most interesting part of the story is the beginning. The Stones, Brian Jones, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Bill Wyman and a rotating group of drummers were living in a disgusting walk-up apartment barely getting by on what they earned doing gigs in the few blues clubs in London. They were part of a free-floating group of musicians who were drunk on black American music. Eric Clapton, Pete Townsend, Jack Bruce, Jimmy Page and the rest of the future British Rock stars where all in the mix.
Brian Jones was the moving force that put the Rolling Stones together in July of 1962. Originally Mick and Keith looked up to him. He was a better musician and knew more of the music they were after. By 1964 they were the second hottest band in London, after the Beatles.
As the band took off, Mick became the center of attention and Keith became the most important musician. Spitz shows the slow slide of Brian Jones. He was insecure and very difficult. As the Stones became massive international stars, he gradually alienated everyone in the band. He stopped participating with the band. On June 8,1969 the band members fired him. On July 3, 1969, he drowned in his backyard swimming pool.
The story from that point on becomes a classic rock and roll story. There are massive amounts of drugs. At some point every member of the band, except Bill Wyman, was addicted to heroin. Their lives were rounds of holding up in a studio for months to write and record the new album. Going on a tour to promote the album while dealing with riots and drug arrests and then time off to get in trouble.
Spitz does an excellent job showing how insane their world was. He shows how the tragedy at Altamont was driven by carelessness and a feeling that everything will just work out. It takes a lot of drugs to agree that it is a good idea to have Hell's Angels handle security at a free 300,000-person concert.
The Stones, Mick and Keith in particular, were not cruel. They were simply stone-cold egomaniacs. They were surrounded by drug overdose deaths, abandoned children, injured concert goers, people going to jail, drug induced mental illness, suicide, women assaulted and abused, multiple arrests and jail sentences. Their money and fame protected them from any of the consequences. They bought off cops. They had friendly rehabs when they needed to clean up for a court hearing. They were surrounded by people who would do anything to be near them.
In a rare moment of honesty, Keith once admitted, "The Rolling Stones destroy people at an alarming rate."
Sorry, I started preaching and wandered away from the book. It is an excellent biography. Spitz explains the crazy business machinations. He gives a good feel of what it was like in the recording studio. He follows the confusing and convoluted love lives of the band. This is a very good biography of the Rolling Stones.
The best summary of this book is the line from The Great Gadsby.
"They were careless people--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness."
May 8, 2026
There have been many books written about the Rolling Stones down through the years, but this 602 page aptly named Biography has to be the most comprehensive ever written. Accompanied by over
50 pages of footnotes, followed by an extensive Bibliography, there is little left to the imagination.
Proclaimed as "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" there are many who would agree with that assessment, while others would say The Beatles should have that title. The early Beatles were great, but once they stopped touring and became a studio band, they became little more than four individuals occasionally playing together, resting on their laurels. The Stones, on the other hand, continued to tour and still do even though their main players, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are in their 80's. They've remained - unlike the Beatles - true to their roots and are deserving of the title.
As you read this, you have to wonder how the group survived - and, truth be told, there were times when they didn't speak to each other for several years, but inevitably, the lure of the road and great music brought them back together. You have to wonder though how they survived (some didn't) because of a massive case of drug addiction. It's unbelievable how much truly great music was produced while the band was in a drug-induced haze. It seems that at least half the book details how much time, energy and money was wasted on taking drugs and staying high, and in some cases, it did affect their output, but despite that, it seemed every album had at least one outstanding track, drugs or not. After reading about the drugs, you have to wonder what they could have produced had they been straight. But they were the bad boys of rock, and proved it.
If there's one drawback, it's the final chapter which seems to have been thrown together, just more or less listing tours taken in the 2000's, tossed in almost as an afterthought. Surely, there was something worth reporting about that happened in this century.
This book is aimed at - obviously - fans of the Rolling Stones, but would be enjoyed by fans of rock and roll or those curious about why people think - and know - the Stones are the World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band. It's an entertaining and enjoyable read and flows smoothly.
ROCK ON!!
50 pages of footnotes, followed by an extensive Bibliography, there is little left to the imagination.
Proclaimed as "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" there are many who would agree with that assessment, while others would say The Beatles should have that title. The early Beatles were great, but once they stopped touring and became a studio band, they became little more than four individuals occasionally playing together, resting on their laurels. The Stones, on the other hand, continued to tour and still do even though their main players, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are in their 80's. They've remained - unlike the Beatles - true to their roots and are deserving of the title.
As you read this, you have to wonder how the group survived - and, truth be told, there were times when they didn't speak to each other for several years, but inevitably, the lure of the road and great music brought them back together. You have to wonder though how they survived (some didn't) because of a massive case of drug addiction. It's unbelievable how much truly great music was produced while the band was in a drug-induced haze. It seems that at least half the book details how much time, energy and money was wasted on taking drugs and staying high, and in some cases, it did affect their output, but despite that, it seemed every album had at least one outstanding track, drugs or not. After reading about the drugs, you have to wonder what they could have produced had they been straight. But they were the bad boys of rock, and proved it.
If there's one drawback, it's the final chapter which seems to have been thrown together, just more or less listing tours taken in the 2000's, tossed in almost as an afterthought. Surely, there was something worth reporting about that happened in this century.
This book is aimed at - obviously - fans of the Rolling Stones, but would be enjoyed by fans of rock and roll or those curious about why people think - and know - the Stones are the World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band. It's an entertaining and enjoyable read and flows smoothly.
ROCK ON!!
May 6, 2026
I like Bob Spitz as a writer. I've read his Beatles book and Led Zeppelin books before this and they were great. The Beatles, to paraphrase the Simpsons, comprised a dramaturgical quadriad. So their book really felt clean, their story is one of invention and, well, being the biggest musical force of all time.
Led Zeppelin was a fun read because Spitz seems to hate them. And they were a band of degenerates (and John Paul Jones) who were managed by the biggest coke-addled psycho I've ever heard of.
The Beatles were cool with The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin were jealous their artful praise. They floated around in both of his other books, and both of those books were better. Well, they were better but also had more interesting subjects. The hook for The Rolling Stones is that they keep on doing it! And this book felt like it was in that spirit. I get the feeling that Spitz probably prefers the Stones (certainly more than Zeppelin!) and he had enough to pull from to get going. I was, admittedly stoked whenever the book mentioned instances from the other books.
Though maybe the least "interesting" of the three books, The Rolling Stones are now my favorite of these three bands. There are good dynamics in the book: Spitz does a good job showcasing the fraught relationship of "The Glimmer Twins (Jagger and Richards)" and how Brian Jones slowly lost his edge as the band strayed from blues roots music. Also JESUS CHRIST A FIFTY-YEAR-OLD BILL WYMAN DATED A 13-YEAR-OLD IN THE LATE 80S DA FUQQ?
Overall, they just kept being a band because they wanted to. And STILL want to. Hats off to them! While The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are good reads regardless of your connection to their music, The Rolling Stones feels the most like a fanboy book. There are moments where things could be fleshed out and more nods to "yeah, YOU KNOW THIS SONG!"
Great read even if I had a few nitpicks with it. I also discovered Balatro the day this book came out. So I was just listening to the audiobook (band biographies are the only audiobooks I really fux with) and played Balatro. IT WHIPS ASS. I highly recommend the combo. Also, I guess I need to relisten to Steel Wheels. It didn't do much for me when I listened to the thrift store cassette in high school. But it seemed well received at the time!
Led Zeppelin was a fun read because Spitz seems to hate them. And they were a band of degenerates (and John Paul Jones) who were managed by the biggest coke-addled psycho I've ever heard of.
The Beatles were cool with The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin were jealous their artful praise. They floated around in both of his other books, and both of those books were better. Well, they were better but also had more interesting subjects. The hook for The Rolling Stones is that they keep on doing it! And this book felt like it was in that spirit. I get the feeling that Spitz probably prefers the Stones (certainly more than Zeppelin!) and he had enough to pull from to get going. I was, admittedly stoked whenever the book mentioned instances from the other books.
Though maybe the least "interesting" of the three books, The Rolling Stones are now my favorite of these three bands. There are good dynamics in the book: Spitz does a good job showcasing the fraught relationship of "The Glimmer Twins (Jagger and Richards)" and how Brian Jones slowly lost his edge as the band strayed from blues roots music. Also JESUS CHRIST A FIFTY-YEAR-OLD BILL WYMAN DATED A 13-YEAR-OLD IN THE LATE 80S DA FUQQ?
Overall, they just kept being a band because they wanted to. And STILL want to. Hats off to them! While The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are good reads regardless of your connection to their music, The Rolling Stones feels the most like a fanboy book. There are moments where things could be fleshed out and more nods to "yeah, YOU KNOW THIS SONG!"
Great read even if I had a few nitpicks with it. I also discovered Balatro the day this book came out. So I was just listening to the audiobook (band biographies are the only audiobooks I really fux with) and played Balatro. IT WHIPS ASS. I highly recommend the combo. Also, I guess I need to relisten to Steel Wheels. It didn't do much for me when I listened to the thrift store cassette in high school. But it seemed well received at the time!
May 7, 2026
Saw this book on display at my local library and thought, "I've read all the other Stones biographies, do I really need to read this one?" Checked it out anyway, and glad I did. Bob Spitz has a gift for placing pearls in his writing. For example, he details how the Rolling Stones early on were highly impressed with a black group whose song trailed, "This will be the last time, this will be the last time". Spitz doesn't connect that dot for you. You connect it if you are familiar with their incredible early song, "Last Time". I'm only part way through, but am 100% "satisfied" with Bob Spitz' writing so far!
June 9, 2026
An excellent, and at times intensely thorough, biography that colors in some of the areas about the band and its members that were more glossed over in previous coverage. None of them come out looking like gentlemen, nor would they want to. However, there are moments that become repetitive—because the band’s history is rather circular. And at other, fewer moments, you’d wish Spitz would dig deeper.
June 20, 2026
Having read just about every book written about my favorite band I intended to pass on this one thinking who needs yet another book about the Rolling Stones. But, I couldn't help myself and I'm glad I checked it out. Most of the previous bio's have been written by hangers-on types with marginal knowledge and a few stories to share. This one is done in almost a scholarly fashion and has obviously been well researched. While it doesn't contain any major new information its also not written as a tabloid style tell all. Its a solid authoritative bio.
I've been enthralled by their music, their aura and their wild, roller-coaster history since I was 14. But after reading this I'm left with the belief that Mick and Keith, no matter how talented they are, are two of the most ruthless, self absorbed people around. They not only use people then cast them aside, but are often mean-spirited and cruel about it. Sad.
That being said, this is now the definitive biography and fun read.
I've been enthralled by their music, their aura and their wild, roller-coaster history since I was 14. But after reading this I'm left with the belief that Mick and Keith, no matter how talented they are, are two of the most ruthless, self absorbed people around. They not only use people then cast them aside, but are often mean-spirited and cruel about it. Sad.
That being said, this is now the definitive biography and fun read.
May 20, 2026
Definitive.
Low-key favorite piece is on Charlie Watts. After hundreds of pages covering very little about him, Spitz writes that while everyone else was out raising hell during tours, Watts would just sit and draw whatever hotel room he was staying in. R.I.P.
Low-key favorite piece is on Charlie Watts. After hundreds of pages covering very little about him, Spitz writes that while everyone else was out raising hell during tours, Watts would just sit and draw whatever hotel room he was staying in. R.I.P.
May 30, 2026
The Rolling Stones to me is the epitome of what the Beatles could have been if they had learned how to collectively put their egos aside for the sake of longevity and working their geniuses together to create music. Jagger and Richards are the heart of the group and in spite of their imperfections, have been able to direct the Stones forward and avoided the pitfalls of the other classic rock groups.
The Stones are one of my favorite bands and on my Spotify Favorites list, they command a lot of repeated play.
The Stones are one of my favorite bands and on my Spotify Favorites list, they command a lot of repeated play.
April 29, 2026
The World’s Greatest Rock & Roll Band!! 🤘🏼
May 18, 2026
Here's my review for the Los Angeles Times:
MUSIC
Bob Spitz proves the Rolling Stones are rock’s greatest band in magnificent new biography
The Rolling Stones lineup in the early 1960s was Charlie Watts, left, Bill Wyman, Mick Jagger, Brian Jones and Keith Richards.
(Michael Ochs Archives / Getty Images)
By Marc Ballon
April 20, 2026 3 AM PT
•
• 2
• 9 min
•
By early 1963, the Station Hotel in London had become an epicenter of the burgeoning British blues scene. On a blustery, snowy night that February, the Rolling Stones’ classic early lineup took the stage for one of the first times, dazzling the audience with ferocious renditions of blues standards like Muddy Waters’ “I Want to Be Loved” and Jimmy Reed’s “Bright Lights, Big City.”
Multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones, the band’s founder and leader, synchronized guitars with Keith Richards, who favored a distinctive slashing and stinging style. Drummer Charlie Watts, the group’s newest member, a jazz aficionado and an accomplished percussionist, propelled the music forward with a rock-solid beat.
Anchoring the rhythm section with him was bassist Bill Wyman, who was recruited more for his spare VOX AC30 amp that the guitarists could plug into than for his musical skills. The stoic bassist proved a strong and innovative player. Together, he and Watts would go on to form one of rock’s most decorated rhythm sections.
Ian Stewart’s energetic boogie-woogie piano style rounded out the sound. Months later, manager Andrew Loog Oldham kicked him out of the band for being “ugly,” although Stewart continued to record, tour and serve as the band’s road manager until his death in 1985.
Fronting the group was Mick Jagger. Channeling the music like a crazed shaman, Jagger shimmied and sashayed, owning the stage like few lead singers have before or since. By the end of the night, the Stones had the crowd in a frenzy. Although only 30 people had made it to the gig because of the treacherous weather conditions, the hotel’s booker had seen enough: He offered the Stones a regular gig.
“The Rolling Stones had caught fire. The music they were playing and the way they played it struck a chord with a young crowd starved for something different, something their own… It was soul-stirring, loud and uncompromising,” writes Bob Spitz in “The Rolling Stones: The Biography,” his magisterial work that charts the 60-year journey of “the greatest rock and roll band in the world.”
Spitz, the author of strong biographies on the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, as well as Ronald Reagan and Julia Child, captures the drama, trauma and betrayals that have kept the Stones in the public’s consciousness for more than six decades.
It’s all here: The Stones’ evolution from a blues cover band to artistic rival of the Beatles; the musical peaks — “Aftermath,” “Let It Bleed” and “Exile on Main Street” as well as misfires like “Dirty Work”; Keith’s descent into a debilitating heroin addiction that nearly destroyed him and the band; the death of the ‘60s at the ill-fated Altamont free concert; Marianne Faithfull, Anita Pallenberg, Bianca Jagger, Jerry Hall and other lovers, partners and muses; the breakups, makeups and crackups; and perhaps most important, the unbreakable bond between Jagger and Richards at the center of it all.
Although Spitz unearths little new information, he excels at presenting the Stones in glorious Technicolor. Spitz homes in on the telling details and anecdotes that give the band’s story a deep richness and poignancy.
Take “Satisfaction,” the Stones’ 1965 classic and first U.S. chart topper. The oft-told story is that Richards woke up in the middle of the night, grabbed the guitar that was next to his bed, and recorded the iconic riff and the phrase “I can’t get no … satisfaction” on a cassette recorder in his Clearwater, Fla., hotel room before falling back asleep. But as Spitz notes, the song initially went nowhere in the studio. That is until Stewart purchased a fuzz box for Richards a few days later, which gave the tune a raunchier sound that perfectly matched Jagger’s lyrics of frustration and alienation. A classic was born.
Piercing the Stones mythology
Spitz’s deep reporting often pierces the mythology surrounding the band. Contrary to the popular belief of many fans, for instance, Jones bears much of the responsibility for the rift with his bandmates and his tragic demise.
The most musically adventurous member of the group — he plays sitar on “Paint It Black” and dulcimer on “Lady Jane” — Jones wasn’t a songwriter. That stoked his jealousies and insecurities, along with frontman Jagger stealing the spotlight from him. A monster of a man, Jones impregnated multiple teenage girls and physically and emotionally abused several women, including Pallenberg. Perhaps that’s why she left him for Richards. Over time, Jones made fewer contributions in the studio and onstage, becoming a catatonic drug casualty. The Stones fired Jones in June 1969 but would have been justified doing so a couple years earlier. He drowned in his pool less than a month later.
Similarly, Stones lore has long romanticized the making of “Exile on Main Street” in the stifling, dingy basement of Richards’ rented Villa Nellcôte in the South of France, where the Stones had decamped to avoid British taxes. In this telling, Richards, deep in the throes of heroin addiction, somehow managed to come up with one indelible riff after another built around his signature open G tuning — taught to him by Ry Cooder — leading the band to create one of the best albums in rock history. That’s not entirely accurate, according to Spitz.
Yes, Richards came up with the licks for “Rocks Off,” “Happy” and “Tumbling Dice.” But it’s equally true that a strung-out Richards missed myriad recording sessions, invited dealers, hangers-on and other distractions to Nellcôte, and repeatedly failed to turn up to write with Jagger. Far from completing the album in the druggy haze of a French basement, the band spent six months on overdubs at Sunset Sound in Los Angeles, where Jagger contributed many of his vocals.
Beatles vs. Stones
One of the more interesting themes Spitz develops is the symbiotic relationship between the Beatles and Stones, with the Fab Four mostly overshadowing them — until they didn’t.
John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote “I Wanna Be Your Man” and gave it to the Stones, whose 1963 rendition, with Jones on slide guitar, became the group’s first UK Top 20 hit. The Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership inspired Jagger and Richards to begin penning their own songs. In early 1964, the Beatles came to the U.S. for the first time, making television history with their appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” and playing Carnegie Hall. A few months later, the Stones kicked off their inaugural American tour at the Swing Auditorium in San Bernardino. In 1967, the Beatles released “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” a psychedelic masterpiece. The Stones responded with “Their Satanic Majesties Request,” a psychedelic mess.
As the Beatles began to splinter, Spitz writes, the Stones sharpened their focus. The band released “Beggars Banquet” in late 1968 and “Let It Bleed” the following year, albums every bit as innovative and visionary as “The White Album” and “Abbey Road.” For the first time, the two groups stood as equals.
When the Beatles broke up in 1970, the Stones kept rolling. With Jones replaced by virtuoso guitarist Mick Taylor — whose fluid, melodic style served as a tasty foil to Richards — they produced what many consider their finest works, “Sticky Fingers” and “Exile on Main Street.” More impressively, the band, with Taylor’s successor, Ronnie Wood, has continued to dazzle audiences with incendiary live shows, touring as recently as 2024 behind the late-career triumph “Hackney Diamonds.” The Beatles, by contrast, retired from the road in 1966 and devoted their energies to the studio.
Hundreds of books have been written about the Rolling Stones, but few sparkle quite like Spitz’s. For anyone who loves or even likes the Stones, it’s indispensable.
Like most of the band’s biographers, Spitz gives short shrift to the post-“Exile” period after 1972. He curtly dismisses 2005’s strong “A Bigger Bang” and 2016’s “Blue & Lonesome,” a back-to-basics album of blues covers, as “adequate endeavors that signaled a band living on borrowed time.” That critique is both off target and under-developed. Spitz ignores the band’s legendary live album, “Brussels Affair,” recorded in 1973, or why the band waited decades before officially releasing it.
These are small quibbles. Spitz has written a book worthy of its 704-page length; another 50 or so pages covering the later years would have made it even stronger. To quote the Rolling Stones: “I know it’s only rock ‘n roll, but I like it, like it, yes, I do.”
Marc Ballon, a former Times, Forbes and Inc. Magazine reporter, teaches an advanced writing class at USC. He lives in Fullerton.
MUSIC
Bob Spitz proves the Rolling Stones are rock’s greatest band in magnificent new biography
The Rolling Stones lineup in the early 1960s was Charlie Watts, left, Bill Wyman, Mick Jagger, Brian Jones and Keith Richards.
(Michael Ochs Archives / Getty Images)
By Marc Ballon
April 20, 2026 3 AM PT
•
• 2
• 9 min
•
By early 1963, the Station Hotel in London had become an epicenter of the burgeoning British blues scene. On a blustery, snowy night that February, the Rolling Stones’ classic early lineup took the stage for one of the first times, dazzling the audience with ferocious renditions of blues standards like Muddy Waters’ “I Want to Be Loved” and Jimmy Reed’s “Bright Lights, Big City.”
Multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones, the band’s founder and leader, synchronized guitars with Keith Richards, who favored a distinctive slashing and stinging style. Drummer Charlie Watts, the group’s newest member, a jazz aficionado and an accomplished percussionist, propelled the music forward with a rock-solid beat.
Anchoring the rhythm section with him was bassist Bill Wyman, who was recruited more for his spare VOX AC30 amp that the guitarists could plug into than for his musical skills. The stoic bassist proved a strong and innovative player. Together, he and Watts would go on to form one of rock’s most decorated rhythm sections.
Ian Stewart’s energetic boogie-woogie piano style rounded out the sound. Months later, manager Andrew Loog Oldham kicked him out of the band for being “ugly,” although Stewart continued to record, tour and serve as the band’s road manager until his death in 1985.
Fronting the group was Mick Jagger. Channeling the music like a crazed shaman, Jagger shimmied and sashayed, owning the stage like few lead singers have before or since. By the end of the night, the Stones had the crowd in a frenzy. Although only 30 people had made it to the gig because of the treacherous weather conditions, the hotel’s booker had seen enough: He offered the Stones a regular gig.
“The Rolling Stones had caught fire. The music they were playing and the way they played it struck a chord with a young crowd starved for something different, something their own… It was soul-stirring, loud and uncompromising,” writes Bob Spitz in “The Rolling Stones: The Biography,” his magisterial work that charts the 60-year journey of “the greatest rock and roll band in the world.”
Spitz, the author of strong biographies on the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, as well as Ronald Reagan and Julia Child, captures the drama, trauma and betrayals that have kept the Stones in the public’s consciousness for more than six decades.
It’s all here: The Stones’ evolution from a blues cover band to artistic rival of the Beatles; the musical peaks — “Aftermath,” “Let It Bleed” and “Exile on Main Street” as well as misfires like “Dirty Work”; Keith’s descent into a debilitating heroin addiction that nearly destroyed him and the band; the death of the ‘60s at the ill-fated Altamont free concert; Marianne Faithfull, Anita Pallenberg, Bianca Jagger, Jerry Hall and other lovers, partners and muses; the breakups, makeups and crackups; and perhaps most important, the unbreakable bond between Jagger and Richards at the center of it all.
Although Spitz unearths little new information, he excels at presenting the Stones in glorious Technicolor. Spitz homes in on the telling details and anecdotes that give the band’s story a deep richness and poignancy.
Take “Satisfaction,” the Stones’ 1965 classic and first U.S. chart topper. The oft-told story is that Richards woke up in the middle of the night, grabbed the guitar that was next to his bed, and recorded the iconic riff and the phrase “I can’t get no … satisfaction” on a cassette recorder in his Clearwater, Fla., hotel room before falling back asleep. But as Spitz notes, the song initially went nowhere in the studio. That is until Stewart purchased a fuzz box for Richards a few days later, which gave the tune a raunchier sound that perfectly matched Jagger’s lyrics of frustration and alienation. A classic was born.
Piercing the Stones mythology
Spitz’s deep reporting often pierces the mythology surrounding the band. Contrary to the popular belief of many fans, for instance, Jones bears much of the responsibility for the rift with his bandmates and his tragic demise.
The most musically adventurous member of the group — he plays sitar on “Paint It Black” and dulcimer on “Lady Jane” — Jones wasn’t a songwriter. That stoked his jealousies and insecurities, along with frontman Jagger stealing the spotlight from him. A monster of a man, Jones impregnated multiple teenage girls and physically and emotionally abused several women, including Pallenberg. Perhaps that’s why she left him for Richards. Over time, Jones made fewer contributions in the studio and onstage, becoming a catatonic drug casualty. The Stones fired Jones in June 1969 but would have been justified doing so a couple years earlier. He drowned in his pool less than a month later.
Similarly, Stones lore has long romanticized the making of “Exile on Main Street” in the stifling, dingy basement of Richards’ rented Villa Nellcôte in the South of France, where the Stones had decamped to avoid British taxes. In this telling, Richards, deep in the throes of heroin addiction, somehow managed to come up with one indelible riff after another built around his signature open G tuning — taught to him by Ry Cooder — leading the band to create one of the best albums in rock history. That’s not entirely accurate, according to Spitz.
Yes, Richards came up with the licks for “Rocks Off,” “Happy” and “Tumbling Dice.” But it’s equally true that a strung-out Richards missed myriad recording sessions, invited dealers, hangers-on and other distractions to Nellcôte, and repeatedly failed to turn up to write with Jagger. Far from completing the album in the druggy haze of a French basement, the band spent six months on overdubs at Sunset Sound in Los Angeles, where Jagger contributed many of his vocals.
Beatles vs. Stones
One of the more interesting themes Spitz develops is the symbiotic relationship between the Beatles and Stones, with the Fab Four mostly overshadowing them — until they didn’t.
John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote “I Wanna Be Your Man” and gave it to the Stones, whose 1963 rendition, with Jones on slide guitar, became the group’s first UK Top 20 hit. The Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership inspired Jagger and Richards to begin penning their own songs. In early 1964, the Beatles came to the U.S. for the first time, making television history with their appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” and playing Carnegie Hall. A few months later, the Stones kicked off their inaugural American tour at the Swing Auditorium in San Bernardino. In 1967, the Beatles released “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” a psychedelic masterpiece. The Stones responded with “Their Satanic Majesties Request,” a psychedelic mess.
As the Beatles began to splinter, Spitz writes, the Stones sharpened their focus. The band released “Beggars Banquet” in late 1968 and “Let It Bleed” the following year, albums every bit as innovative and visionary as “The White Album” and “Abbey Road.” For the first time, the two groups stood as equals.
When the Beatles broke up in 1970, the Stones kept rolling. With Jones replaced by virtuoso guitarist Mick Taylor — whose fluid, melodic style served as a tasty foil to Richards — they produced what many consider their finest works, “Sticky Fingers” and “Exile on Main Street.” More impressively, the band, with Taylor’s successor, Ronnie Wood, has continued to dazzle audiences with incendiary live shows, touring as recently as 2024 behind the late-career triumph “Hackney Diamonds.” The Beatles, by contrast, retired from the road in 1966 and devoted their energies to the studio.
Hundreds of books have been written about the Rolling Stones, but few sparkle quite like Spitz’s. For anyone who loves or even likes the Stones, it’s indispensable.
Like most of the band’s biographers, Spitz gives short shrift to the post-“Exile” period after 1972. He curtly dismisses 2005’s strong “A Bigger Bang” and 2016’s “Blue & Lonesome,” a back-to-basics album of blues covers, as “adequate endeavors that signaled a band living on borrowed time.” That critique is both off target and under-developed. Spitz ignores the band’s legendary live album, “Brussels Affair,” recorded in 1973, or why the band waited decades before officially releasing it.
These are small quibbles. Spitz has written a book worthy of its 704-page length; another 50 or so pages covering the later years would have made it even stronger. To quote the Rolling Stones: “I know it’s only rock ‘n roll, but I like it, like it, yes, I do.”
Marc Ballon, a former Times, Forbes and Inc. Magazine reporter, teaches an advanced writing class at USC. He lives in Fullerton.
May 28, 2026
I might be jaded from reading several books on The Rolling Stones over the past fifty years but this book did not add much to the story I was already familiar with, despite the book’s six hundred pages. I am curious about the more recent machinations of the band but the last twenty years were largely glossed over. There were some glaring mistakes and typos, the book referred to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover as Herbet Hoover, and called the 1972 tour Mick Taylor’s first visit to America with The Stones after previously describing the 1969 tour in detail, which included Taylor. A reasonable and easy read but nothing new.
May 23, 2026
This review originally appeared in the Washington Independent Review of Books.
You could argue that the Beatles had two distinct acts. In act one, the band played rock ‘n’ roll to screaming fans on ceaseless tours, with John Lennon as bandleader. In act two, the touring stopped, the songs got deeper, and Paul McCartney gradually supplanted Lennon. At the end of the 1960s, the play was over.
The Rolling Stones, by my count, had at least six acts.
In act one, Britain’s best electric blues band found its footing, led by the blonde-haired musical polymath Brian Jones. In act two, the Stones learned to write pop songs, and their authors took center stage: singer Michael “Mick” Jagger and Chuck Berry-obsessed second guitarist Keith Richards. Act three: An identity crisis led the Stones from pop to psychedelia and then back to American roots music, leaving Jones behind. Act four: The Stones hired a proper lead guitarist, Mick Taylor, and proceeded through a string of albums that latter-day fans would consider their best. Act five: Richards sank into heroin addiction, setting off an artistic decline. The proper lead guitarist quit, replaced by a lesser guitarist, Ron Wood, who was a better fit. And act six: After a stirring late-1970s comeback, the Stones settled into a contented dotage, releasing unremarkable albums and staging massively remunerative tours.
Bob Spitz’s The Rolling Stones: The Biography is the first book I’ve read that covers the whole play. Spitz clearly loves the Stones, as I do. I’ve read a few of the classic Stones texts, including Richards’ literary Life and Stanley Booth’s peerless The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones.
Spitz’s book told me nothing dramatically new about the band. But it was a satisfying read, filling in dozens of little holes in my knowledge base and leaving me with that rewarding feeling of knowing the whole story at last.
Spitz is a fearless biographer who has previously tackled the aforementioned Beatles, Dylan, and Led Zeppelin. I say “fearless” because it’s daring to attempt a biography of such well-chronicled subjects, and also because Spitz, who is American, has the chutzpah to write about British bands.
He may have gotten some of the context wrong about the origin stories of the Stones, but I wouldn’t know. And he interviewed none of the core surviving members for this book, as far as I could tell. But let me say this: I’ve read plenty of biographies of British bands by British authors, and they never, ever take the time to explain the curious workings of the British educational system and other odd British-isms. Spitz does. Thank you.
The friendship between Jagger and Richards sits at the center of Spitz’s project: Two boys who forged a friendship on a railway platform, a creative partnership that would spawn the world’s greatest rock ‘n’ roll band.
Wait, were the Stones the world’s greatest rock ‘n’ roll band? Spitz opines, in his acknowledgements, that their contest with the Beatles was a “dead heat.” That’s charitable. I think the Stones were always a distant second in overall artistry and impact, from the day they formed until the day the Beatles broke up, and I think they knew it. One withering glare from acid-tongued Lennon would put Mick and Keith in their place.
The Stones were probably the most important live rock act in the late 1960s, though, after the Beatles stopped touring. And maybe they were the greatest rock band in the world for a brief moment, in the early ‘70s, an era capped by the legendary ’72 tour. (Zeppelin fans would likely disagree.)
The “two boys” motif reminds me of John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs, the recent offering by Ian Leslie that explores the deep and fractious bond between Lennon and McCartney. That book, by the way, is a great work of pure music journalism: Like Spitz, Leslie had no access to his principal characters (one of whom, of course, is dead).
Richards eviscerates Jagger in Life, leaving the impression that the two boys had barely tolerated each other for decades. Spitz, naturally, delivers a more objective read on their relationship. Jagger and Richards created the Stones as an artistic force, collaborating on most of their greatest songs, written and recorded between roughly 1965 and 1972.
(I was surprised at how many songs Jagger penned largely on his own, including “Brown Sugar,” “Sympathy for the Devil,” and “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.” I’d thought Keef was the musical one.)
The Glimmer Twins endured as a true artistic partnership for about as long as Paul and John lasted. Drugs, I think, drove both duos apart. And drugs, I think, explain why Lennon contributed more sporadically to the Beatles songbook after the mid-1960s and why Richards wrote his greatest songs in the first decade of his tenure in the Stones.
There’s a lot to process in Spitz’s 600-page book. Here are a few tidbits I’ve shared with my Stones-obsessed friends:
I love his observation that Richards, around the time of “Satisfaction,” started building songs around memorable guitar riffs, and that nearly every subsequent Stones song of note featured one.
I’d never thought of Jones as the most talented musician in the Stones, as Spitz asserts. I’d dismissed him as a useless appendage, the guy who would show up at the studio, play a few notes on a sitar, and nod off.
If Richards was the band’s creative spark, he was also its angel of death. His hard-living habits passed to literally dozens of wives, girlfriends, bandmates, roadies, producers, and hangers-on, leaving a veritable Moonlight Mile behind him littered with junkies and wasted souls.
Women fared poorly in the Stones’ entourage. Mick, Keith, and the others treated girlfriends and groupies about as you’d expect from their lyrics. (For a refresher, listen to the album Aftermath.)
I would respectfully disagree with Spitz on a few critical points, however. I think he unfairly dismisses 1967’s Between the Buttons, the second Stones album filled with entirely original songs. The U.K. version is admittedly weaker, but the U.S. release gave us “Let’s Spend the Night Together,” “Ruby Tuesday,” and a batch of demonic folk classics.
And I don’t get why Spitz mostly ignores the last halfway-great Stones album, Tattoo You (which includes “Start Me Up,” “Hang Fire,” and “Waiting on a Friend”), and devotes long passages to Undercover and Dirty Work, albums no one will ever play again.
But those are quibbles. The Rolling Stones is a thorough, well-researched, and writerly biography. I breezed through it.
Daniel de Visé is the author, most recently, of The Blues Brothers: An Epic Friendship, the Rise of Improv, and the Making of an American Film Classic.
You could argue that the Beatles had two distinct acts. In act one, the band played rock ‘n’ roll to screaming fans on ceaseless tours, with John Lennon as bandleader. In act two, the touring stopped, the songs got deeper, and Paul McCartney gradually supplanted Lennon. At the end of the 1960s, the play was over.
The Rolling Stones, by my count, had at least six acts.
In act one, Britain’s best electric blues band found its footing, led by the blonde-haired musical polymath Brian Jones. In act two, the Stones learned to write pop songs, and their authors took center stage: singer Michael “Mick” Jagger and Chuck Berry-obsessed second guitarist Keith Richards. Act three: An identity crisis led the Stones from pop to psychedelia and then back to American roots music, leaving Jones behind. Act four: The Stones hired a proper lead guitarist, Mick Taylor, and proceeded through a string of albums that latter-day fans would consider their best. Act five: Richards sank into heroin addiction, setting off an artistic decline. The proper lead guitarist quit, replaced by a lesser guitarist, Ron Wood, who was a better fit. And act six: After a stirring late-1970s comeback, the Stones settled into a contented dotage, releasing unremarkable albums and staging massively remunerative tours.
Bob Spitz’s The Rolling Stones: The Biography is the first book I’ve read that covers the whole play. Spitz clearly loves the Stones, as I do. I’ve read a few of the classic Stones texts, including Richards’ literary Life and Stanley Booth’s peerless The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones.
Spitz’s book told me nothing dramatically new about the band. But it was a satisfying read, filling in dozens of little holes in my knowledge base and leaving me with that rewarding feeling of knowing the whole story at last.
Spitz is a fearless biographer who has previously tackled the aforementioned Beatles, Dylan, and Led Zeppelin. I say “fearless” because it’s daring to attempt a biography of such well-chronicled subjects, and also because Spitz, who is American, has the chutzpah to write about British bands.
He may have gotten some of the context wrong about the origin stories of the Stones, but I wouldn’t know. And he interviewed none of the core surviving members for this book, as far as I could tell. But let me say this: I’ve read plenty of biographies of British bands by British authors, and they never, ever take the time to explain the curious workings of the British educational system and other odd British-isms. Spitz does. Thank you.
The friendship between Jagger and Richards sits at the center of Spitz’s project: Two boys who forged a friendship on a railway platform, a creative partnership that would spawn the world’s greatest rock ‘n’ roll band.
Wait, were the Stones the world’s greatest rock ‘n’ roll band? Spitz opines, in his acknowledgements, that their contest with the Beatles was a “dead heat.” That’s charitable. I think the Stones were always a distant second in overall artistry and impact, from the day they formed until the day the Beatles broke up, and I think they knew it. One withering glare from acid-tongued Lennon would put Mick and Keith in their place.
The Stones were probably the most important live rock act in the late 1960s, though, after the Beatles stopped touring. And maybe they were the greatest rock band in the world for a brief moment, in the early ‘70s, an era capped by the legendary ’72 tour. (Zeppelin fans would likely disagree.)
The “two boys” motif reminds me of John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs, the recent offering by Ian Leslie that explores the deep and fractious bond between Lennon and McCartney. That book, by the way, is a great work of pure music journalism: Like Spitz, Leslie had no access to his principal characters (one of whom, of course, is dead).
Richards eviscerates Jagger in Life, leaving the impression that the two boys had barely tolerated each other for decades. Spitz, naturally, delivers a more objective read on their relationship. Jagger and Richards created the Stones as an artistic force, collaborating on most of their greatest songs, written and recorded between roughly 1965 and 1972.
(I was surprised at how many songs Jagger penned largely on his own, including “Brown Sugar,” “Sympathy for the Devil,” and “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.” I’d thought Keef was the musical one.)
The Glimmer Twins endured as a true artistic partnership for about as long as Paul and John lasted. Drugs, I think, drove both duos apart. And drugs, I think, explain why Lennon contributed more sporadically to the Beatles songbook after the mid-1960s and why Richards wrote his greatest songs in the first decade of his tenure in the Stones.
There’s a lot to process in Spitz’s 600-page book. Here are a few tidbits I’ve shared with my Stones-obsessed friends:
I love his observation that Richards, around the time of “Satisfaction,” started building songs around memorable guitar riffs, and that nearly every subsequent Stones song of note featured one.
I’d never thought of Jones as the most talented musician in the Stones, as Spitz asserts. I’d dismissed him as a useless appendage, the guy who would show up at the studio, play a few notes on a sitar, and nod off.
If Richards was the band’s creative spark, he was also its angel of death. His hard-living habits passed to literally dozens of wives, girlfriends, bandmates, roadies, producers, and hangers-on, leaving a veritable Moonlight Mile behind him littered with junkies and wasted souls.
Women fared poorly in the Stones’ entourage. Mick, Keith, and the others treated girlfriends and groupies about as you’d expect from their lyrics. (For a refresher, listen to the album Aftermath.)
I would respectfully disagree with Spitz on a few critical points, however. I think he unfairly dismisses 1967’s Between the Buttons, the second Stones album filled with entirely original songs. The U.K. version is admittedly weaker, but the U.S. release gave us “Let’s Spend the Night Together,” “Ruby Tuesday,” and a batch of demonic folk classics.
And I don’t get why Spitz mostly ignores the last halfway-great Stones album, Tattoo You (which includes “Start Me Up,” “Hang Fire,” and “Waiting on a Friend”), and devotes long passages to Undercover and Dirty Work, albums no one will ever play again.
But those are quibbles. The Rolling Stones is a thorough, well-researched, and writerly biography. I breezed through it.
Daniel de Visé is the author, most recently, of The Blues Brothers: An Epic Friendship, the Rise of Improv, and the Making of an American Film Classic.
May 14, 2026
Bob Spitz ‘The Rolling Stones: The Biography’ – saga s odsječenim krajem
S najavom nadolazećeg 25. albuma The Rolling Stonesa “Foreign Tongues” i objavom njegove dvije uvodne pjesme “Rough And Twisted” i “In The Stars” koincidirala je i još jedna biografija benda, ova iz pera američkoga novinara Boba Spitza koji je već prethodno u svojim knjigama prošarao kroz panteon najvećih bogova rocka kao što su The Beatles, Bob Dylan i Led Zeppelin.
Knjiga o Stonesima bila je tako logičan sljedeći korak u njegovoj bibliografiji, a nazvana prema istom principu kao i navedene prethodnice jednostavno “Rolling Stones: The Biography” već je na svojim koricama jasno poslala poruku da je samo jedan u nizu brojnih sličnih uradaka koje relativno pravocrtno govore o povijesti jednog od onih bendova o kojima nam se čini da je već sve odavno napisano i pročitano, za razliku od nekih zanimljivijih naslova koji se bave pojedinim razdobljima i temama vezanima za izvođače u pitanju.
Gledajući tako, Spitzova knjiga zastaje na svim ključnim točkama iz legende o bendu, od sudbonosnog susreta Micka Jaggera i Keitha Richardsa na kolodvoru kad ih je spojilo otkriće o zajedničkoj ljubavi prema američkoj glazbi, prvenstveno bluesu koji se tek sramežljivo počeo probijati preko oceana, zatim osnivanje benda s Brianom Jonesom i njihovim prvim koncertima, probijanja u Sjedinjenim Državama (koje im u početku nije išlo jednako lako kao Beatlesima), pa do otpuštanja i odmah zatim tragične smrti Jonesa pod sumnjivim okolnostima.
Ta mračna epizoda dovela je, naravno, do legendarnog koncerta u Hyde Parku koji su posvetili netom preminulom bivšem članu, a potom i nalaženja zamjenskih gitarista, prvo u Micku Tayloru, a zatim konačno i Ronnieju Woodu). Nedugo zatim uslijedit će i tragedija na Altamontu gdje su Hell’s Angels ubili čovjeka u publici, a sve to bit će popraćenp detaljnim opisima pretjeranog drogiranja i seksualnih razvata i svega ostalog što je pratilo zločeste dečke rock and rolla (s iznimkom stabilnog bubnjara Charlieja Wattsa) u sedamdesetim godinama prošlog stoljeća.
Spitzu tako ne preostaje mnogo toga da svoju knjigu učini vrijednom pozornosti čitatelja koji je već dobro upoznat sa svime navedenim, osim da priču ispriča na zanimljiv način i posipa je određenim manje poznatim detaljima. Valja napomenuti da uspijeva u oba zadatka, a među zanimljivijim odlomcima su primjerice neki detalji s brojnih suđenja zvijezdama (uglavnom zbog posjedovanja droga) ili pak zakulisne priče s nekih koncertnih nastupa među kojima se, primjerice, neki sočni detalji sa snimanja prvom američkog koncertnog filma “T.A.M.I. Show” u kojemu ih je kultnim energičnim nastupom zasjenio veliki James Brown.
Usto, zanimljiva su i cameo pojavljivanja trenutnog američkog ministra zdravstva Roberta F. Kennedyja kao jednog od drogeraša u raspuštenoj sviti benda i zloglasnog Harveyja Weinsteina. Valjda spomenuti da se autor prilično ravnodušno odnosi prema mizoginiji članova benda, kako u pisanju pjesama, tako i u stvarnom životu, a za koju su često, kao i za usputni rasizam, znali počesto biti optuživani (vidi pjesme poput “Some Girls” i “Brown Sugar”). Spitz ne pokušava brojne mračne strane Jaggera i Richardsa gurati pod tepih, ali se ni ne trudi pretjerano moralizirati oko njih. Jednostavno ih bilježi hladno poput kakvog povjesničara.
U samom središtu pozornosti najčešće je odnos između Micka i Keitha koji se pokazao neraskidivim unatoč brojnim usponima i padovima, pa čak i u Richardsovim najtežim danima kad je jedva mogao funkcionirati od pretjerane konzumacije heroina. Ostali članovi tek su nešto više od statista, ali ovo nije prva knjiga u kojoj nalazimo takav slučaj.
Najveći problem ove biografije jest taj što je usredotočena isključivo na prvih dvadeset godina benda. Nepobitna je činjenica da je bend svoje najlegendarnije albume isporučio u kratkom vremenskom razdoblju između 1968. i 1972. (“Beggar’s Banquet”, “Let It Bleed”, “Sticky Fingers” i “Exile on Main St.”) i da su se sve najzanimljivije stvari iz njihovih života dogodile upravo u tom razdoblju, pa je zato i najveći dio knjige u njega i smješten, ali Spitz nakon toga ubrzava tempo pripovijedanja sve više i više te dolazimo do spoznaje da je devedeset posto knjige već iza nas, a nismo došli dalje od prvih dvadeset godina njihove karijere, odnosno albuma “Some Girls”.
Pomalo je nepošteno tretirati sve nakon 1978. kao fusnotu benda koji postoji toliko dugo, i premda možda neće objavljivati remek-djela u rangu spomenuta četiri albuma s prijelaza šezdesetih u sedamdesete, ipak se čini da se i o kasnoj fazi moglo više toga ispričati. Čak i u fazi kad su snimili neke od svojih najslabijih albuma (“Dirty Work” obično prednjači kad se govori o takvima), uglavnom zbog poremećenih odnosa između tzv. Glimmer Twinsa kao autorskog motora sastava, njihove priče zaslužuju biti prenesene s većom posvećenošću od one koju im pruža Spitz. S druge strane otpisivanje jakih albuma iz kasnije faze benda poput “A Bigger Bang” i “Blue & Lonesome” kao tek adekvatnih izdanja odaje dojam da ih autor nije ni poslušao.
Stoga, tko god traži knjigu koja će mu poslužiti kao upoznavanje s burnom karijerom Stonesa, i dalje će mu se najviše isplatiti da posegne za divljom autobiografijom Keitha Richardsa “Life” iz 2010. godine. “The Biography” solidno pokriva prvi dio njihove priče, a ako smatrate da vam više od toga nije ni potrebno, onda joj slobodno dajte priliku.
(Penguin Press, 704 stranice, tvrdi uvez, travanj 2026.)
S najavom nadolazećeg 25. albuma The Rolling Stonesa “Foreign Tongues” i objavom njegove dvije uvodne pjesme “Rough And Twisted” i “In The Stars” koincidirala je i još jedna biografija benda, ova iz pera američkoga novinara Boba Spitza koji je već prethodno u svojim knjigama prošarao kroz panteon najvećih bogova rocka kao što su The Beatles, Bob Dylan i Led Zeppelin.
Knjiga o Stonesima bila je tako logičan sljedeći korak u njegovoj bibliografiji, a nazvana prema istom principu kao i navedene prethodnice jednostavno “Rolling Stones: The Biography” već je na svojim koricama jasno poslala poruku da je samo jedan u nizu brojnih sličnih uradaka koje relativno pravocrtno govore o povijesti jednog od onih bendova o kojima nam se čini da je već sve odavno napisano i pročitano, za razliku od nekih zanimljivijih naslova koji se bave pojedinim razdobljima i temama vezanima za izvođače u pitanju.
Gledajući tako, Spitzova knjiga zastaje na svim ključnim točkama iz legende o bendu, od sudbonosnog susreta Micka Jaggera i Keitha Richardsa na kolodvoru kad ih je spojilo otkriće o zajedničkoj ljubavi prema američkoj glazbi, prvenstveno bluesu koji se tek sramežljivo počeo probijati preko oceana, zatim osnivanje benda s Brianom Jonesom i njihovim prvim koncertima, probijanja u Sjedinjenim Državama (koje im u početku nije išlo jednako lako kao Beatlesima), pa do otpuštanja i odmah zatim tragične smrti Jonesa pod sumnjivim okolnostima.
Ta mračna epizoda dovela je, naravno, do legendarnog koncerta u Hyde Parku koji su posvetili netom preminulom bivšem članu, a potom i nalaženja zamjenskih gitarista, prvo u Micku Tayloru, a zatim konačno i Ronnieju Woodu). Nedugo zatim uslijedit će i tragedija na Altamontu gdje su Hell’s Angels ubili čovjeka u publici, a sve to bit će popraćenp detaljnim opisima pretjeranog drogiranja i seksualnih razvata i svega ostalog što je pratilo zločeste dečke rock and rolla (s iznimkom stabilnog bubnjara Charlieja Wattsa) u sedamdesetim godinama prošlog stoljeća.
Spitzu tako ne preostaje mnogo toga da svoju knjigu učini vrijednom pozornosti čitatelja koji je već dobro upoznat sa svime navedenim, osim da priču ispriča na zanimljiv način i posipa je određenim manje poznatim detaljima. Valja napomenuti da uspijeva u oba zadatka, a među zanimljivijim odlomcima su primjerice neki detalji s brojnih suđenja zvijezdama (uglavnom zbog posjedovanja droga) ili pak zakulisne priče s nekih koncertnih nastupa među kojima se, primjerice, neki sočni detalji sa snimanja prvom američkog koncertnog filma “T.A.M.I. Show” u kojemu ih je kultnim energičnim nastupom zasjenio veliki James Brown.
Usto, zanimljiva su i cameo pojavljivanja trenutnog američkog ministra zdravstva Roberta F. Kennedyja kao jednog od drogeraša u raspuštenoj sviti benda i zloglasnog Harveyja Weinsteina. Valjda spomenuti da se autor prilično ravnodušno odnosi prema mizoginiji članova benda, kako u pisanju pjesama, tako i u stvarnom životu, a za koju su često, kao i za usputni rasizam, znali počesto biti optuživani (vidi pjesme poput “Some Girls” i “Brown Sugar”). Spitz ne pokušava brojne mračne strane Jaggera i Richardsa gurati pod tepih, ali se ni ne trudi pretjerano moralizirati oko njih. Jednostavno ih bilježi hladno poput kakvog povjesničara.
U samom središtu pozornosti najčešće je odnos između Micka i Keitha koji se pokazao neraskidivim unatoč brojnim usponima i padovima, pa čak i u Richardsovim najtežim danima kad je jedva mogao funkcionirati od pretjerane konzumacije heroina. Ostali članovi tek su nešto više od statista, ali ovo nije prva knjiga u kojoj nalazimo takav slučaj.
Najveći problem ove biografije jest taj što je usredotočena isključivo na prvih dvadeset godina benda. Nepobitna je činjenica da je bend svoje najlegendarnije albume isporučio u kratkom vremenskom razdoblju između 1968. i 1972. (“Beggar’s Banquet”, “Let It Bleed”, “Sticky Fingers” i “Exile on Main St.”) i da su se sve najzanimljivije stvari iz njihovih života dogodile upravo u tom razdoblju, pa je zato i najveći dio knjige u njega i smješten, ali Spitz nakon toga ubrzava tempo pripovijedanja sve više i više te dolazimo do spoznaje da je devedeset posto knjige već iza nas, a nismo došli dalje od prvih dvadeset godina njihove karijere, odnosno albuma “Some Girls”.
Pomalo je nepošteno tretirati sve nakon 1978. kao fusnotu benda koji postoji toliko dugo, i premda možda neće objavljivati remek-djela u rangu spomenuta četiri albuma s prijelaza šezdesetih u sedamdesete, ipak se čini da se i o kasnoj fazi moglo više toga ispričati. Čak i u fazi kad su snimili neke od svojih najslabijih albuma (“Dirty Work” obično prednjači kad se govori o takvima), uglavnom zbog poremećenih odnosa između tzv. Glimmer Twinsa kao autorskog motora sastava, njihove priče zaslužuju biti prenesene s većom posvećenošću od one koju im pruža Spitz. S druge strane otpisivanje jakih albuma iz kasnije faze benda poput “A Bigger Bang” i “Blue & Lonesome” kao tek adekvatnih izdanja odaje dojam da ih autor nije ni poslušao.
Stoga, tko god traži knjigu koja će mu poslužiti kao upoznavanje s burnom karijerom Stonesa, i dalje će mu se najviše isplatiti da posegne za divljom autobiografijom Keitha Richardsa “Life” iz 2010. godine. “The Biography” solidno pokriva prvi dio njihove priče, a ako smatrate da vam više od toga nije ni potrebno, onda joj slobodno dajte priliku.
(Penguin Press, 704 stranice, tvrdi uvez, travanj 2026.)
June 2, 2026
Page 119 my edition
For British rock bands, America was the Promised Land, the home of the forefathers – Chuck [Berry], Elvis, and Buddy [Holly]. The place where blues flowed like honey and a whole lotta shakin’ was going on.
Page 578 1989 tour
A “Rolling Stone” writer popped the question right on cue. “Could this be the last time?” Mick pumped a fist. “First asked in 1966!”
I recall at the beginning of the ‘70s, after the Beatles split up, with others like Simon and Garfunkel, plus pop groups that dissolved (Dave Clark Five, Herman’s Hermits …) that it was only a matter of time that the Stones would break up. But NO, they weathered many storms but kept together.
Page 399 early ‘70s
The drug busts, Brian’s death, Allen Klein [seedy manager], Altamont, Keith and Anita’s [Pallenberg] rigorous heroin addiction – anyone of these was enough to rend a band asunder… The Stones seemed to thrive on near disaster. Despite it all, they never considered breaking up.
Page 482 Keith Richards
No one leaves this band except in a pine box.
They did go through personnel changes. As per the author, Brian Jones died under mysterious circumstances in 1969 and was replaced by Mick Taylor. It’s a little more complicated because Brian was essentially “fired” from the band due to his erratic behavior brought on by substance abuse (drugs of all kinds, plus alcohol) and a very volatile personality. Mick Taylor left in 1974 to be replaced by Ronnie Wood.
The book is very detailed on the origins of the Stones and their influences. Initially it was seen as Brian Jones' band, but the strong friendship between Mick and Keith pushed him aside – more so when they started writing songs together. Brian Jones, although a talented and innovative musician, was not adept at songwriting.
The Stones were not called the “Bad Boys” of Rock ‘n Roll for nothing. Sex, drugs, and Rock ‘n Roll with misogyny tossed into the mix. There was a whole lot of it. All the Stones succumbed to this except for their drummer Charlie Watts, but he started his addiction in the 1980s and fortunately kicked the habit. He died in 2021.
I listened to interviews with Keith Richards where he brags about his ability to control his drug intake and behavior. The author provides plenty of examples of when he was off the rails, endangering the lives not only of himself but of others. He could be obnoxious and unappreciative of the other band members
The most interesting parts of the books are on the long-lasting friendship between Mick and Keith – and their synergy with other band members. Both Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman left the band because they felt their contributions were overlooked. They were taken for granted and had had enough.
Mick and Keith met in their late teenage years – and as the myth goes, they both were infatuated with and collected American R&B records. They blended this music into a unique sound – blues, R&B, country – but with a touch of the Stones. The author discusses the evolution of their albums – and even as they were getting older, they still managed to float on the current zeitgeist.
Page 68 1962-63
The Stones were still sticking to the blues. They were going to take the blues, put there own churlish spin on it, and give the British kids a style of music with real bite. Blues-based rock ‘n roll – electrified blues… It was darker and steamier than pop. The blues the Stones played was explicitly sexual, provocative, rough around the edges, and rebellious.
It had a gritty feel.
There was a time in the 80s and 90s when Mick and Keith hardly spoke to each other and were making their own albums. But they reunited and started touring again.
This book is an in-depth look into the most durable and iconic of bands. At 600 pages, over 500 are the history of the Stones before 1980.
Page 267 1968
With “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”, the Rolling Stones had returned to their roots – hard charging rock ‘n roll with a bluesy undertow.
Page 303
For the next fifty years, the moment any audience at a Rolling Stones concert heard that goofy, off-beat cowbell, the place exploded.
(for those not in the know – “Honky Tonk Women”)
For British rock bands, America was the Promised Land, the home of the forefathers – Chuck [Berry], Elvis, and Buddy [Holly]. The place where blues flowed like honey and a whole lotta shakin’ was going on.
Page 578 1989 tour
A “Rolling Stone” writer popped the question right on cue. “Could this be the last time?” Mick pumped a fist. “First asked in 1966!”
I recall at the beginning of the ‘70s, after the Beatles split up, with others like Simon and Garfunkel, plus pop groups that dissolved (Dave Clark Five, Herman’s Hermits …) that it was only a matter of time that the Stones would break up. But NO, they weathered many storms but kept together.
Page 399 early ‘70s
The drug busts, Brian’s death, Allen Klein [seedy manager], Altamont, Keith and Anita’s [Pallenberg] rigorous heroin addiction – anyone of these was enough to rend a band asunder… The Stones seemed to thrive on near disaster. Despite it all, they never considered breaking up.
Page 482 Keith Richards
No one leaves this band except in a pine box.
They did go through personnel changes. As per the author, Brian Jones died under mysterious circumstances in 1969 and was replaced by Mick Taylor. It’s a little more complicated because Brian was essentially “fired” from the band due to his erratic behavior brought on by substance abuse (drugs of all kinds, plus alcohol) and a very volatile personality. Mick Taylor left in 1974 to be replaced by Ronnie Wood.
The book is very detailed on the origins of the Stones and their influences. Initially it was seen as Brian Jones' band, but the strong friendship between Mick and Keith pushed him aside – more so when they started writing songs together. Brian Jones, although a talented and innovative musician, was not adept at songwriting.
The Stones were not called the “Bad Boys” of Rock ‘n Roll for nothing. Sex, drugs, and Rock ‘n Roll with misogyny tossed into the mix. There was a whole lot of it. All the Stones succumbed to this except for their drummer Charlie Watts, but he started his addiction in the 1980s and fortunately kicked the habit. He died in 2021.
I listened to interviews with Keith Richards where he brags about his ability to control his drug intake and behavior. The author provides plenty of examples of when he was off the rails, endangering the lives not only of himself but of others. He could be obnoxious and unappreciative of the other band members
The most interesting parts of the books are on the long-lasting friendship between Mick and Keith – and their synergy with other band members. Both Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman left the band because they felt their contributions were overlooked. They were taken for granted and had had enough.
Mick and Keith met in their late teenage years – and as the myth goes, they both were infatuated with and collected American R&B records. They blended this music into a unique sound – blues, R&B, country – but with a touch of the Stones. The author discusses the evolution of their albums – and even as they were getting older, they still managed to float on the current zeitgeist.
Page 68 1962-63
The Stones were still sticking to the blues. They were going to take the blues, put there own churlish spin on it, and give the British kids a style of music with real bite. Blues-based rock ‘n roll – electrified blues… It was darker and steamier than pop. The blues the Stones played was explicitly sexual, provocative, rough around the edges, and rebellious.
It had a gritty feel.
There was a time in the 80s and 90s when Mick and Keith hardly spoke to each other and were making their own albums. But they reunited and started touring again.
This book is an in-depth look into the most durable and iconic of bands. At 600 pages, over 500 are the history of the Stones before 1980.
Page 267 1968
With “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”, the Rolling Stones had returned to their roots – hard charging rock ‘n roll with a bluesy undertow.
Page 303
For the next fifty years, the moment any audience at a Rolling Stones concert heard that goofy, off-beat cowbell, the place exploded.
(for those not in the know – “Honky Tonk Women”)
May 31, 2026
Bob Spitz has produced the definitive book on The Rolling Stones. THE ROLLING STONES: THE BIOGRAPHY is a 600+ page telling of the truly wild story of the musical group that was in trouble more often than not but managed to become one of the greatest live bands of all time. Even to this day, the Stones are kicking it on stages all across the world. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have survived a lot of otherworldly experiences, despite many attempts to take them down.
The book’s first 300 pages show how the band became famous (or, more accurately, infamous), considering the drug addiction, the messed-up marriages, and the endless number of children being born to various mothers. However, Spitz does a fantastic job of moving beyond the tall tales to focus on the music itself.
When I’ve played Desert Island Discs in the past, regardless of how many female artists rule my Spotify or the fact that the Beatles, Elton John and Steely Dan were the soundtrack to my childhood, I always choose Exile on Main St. as my absolute winner. The array of musical styles, tones and instruments in every song on that double album presents the real reason why the Stones will go down in history as one of the greatest bands ever.
Their version of the blues (learned at the willing hands of B. B. King, Bo Diddley and Buddy Guy), their ability to use orchestras just as well as synthesizers, Keith’s hard-driving guitar work, and Mick’s way with words and his fiery vocal energy are among the most outstanding musical treasures of the 20th century. So I wasn’t surprised to hear that they worked hard on every track, waking up in the middle of the night, humming tunes that would become “Jumpin’ Jack Flash,” “Gimme Shelter” and “Wild Horses.”
I imagine that nothing now is a surprise about the Stones. Still, in his capable prose, Spitz brings out the most audacious and intimate stories about these men and their lives. He gives credence to the fact that, despite the bluster of their sassy, street-tough personas, there are hearts beating inside those guys and deep thoughts ringing in their heads. Yes, the ding of cash registers and their massive fortune play a role in this story. But in the middle of their careers, it was about not just how to stay on top, but how to top what they had done.
Not every experiment has gone well, and the guys who made my desert island pick are no longer the ones who do the giant stadium tours. But THE ROLLING STONES: THE BIOGRAPHY is a fascinating portrait of a band and a system that does not exist now in the rock world, as it has been eclipsed by so many other genres (no matter how hard Geese and Foo Fighters try to keep it going). Bob Spitz has written the truest and most complete history of the world’s most dangerous band.
Reviewed by Jana Siciliano
The book’s first 300 pages show how the band became famous (or, more accurately, infamous), considering the drug addiction, the messed-up marriages, and the endless number of children being born to various mothers. However, Spitz does a fantastic job of moving beyond the tall tales to focus on the music itself.
When I’ve played Desert Island Discs in the past, regardless of how many female artists rule my Spotify or the fact that the Beatles, Elton John and Steely Dan were the soundtrack to my childhood, I always choose Exile on Main St. as my absolute winner. The array of musical styles, tones and instruments in every song on that double album presents the real reason why the Stones will go down in history as one of the greatest bands ever.
Their version of the blues (learned at the willing hands of B. B. King, Bo Diddley and Buddy Guy), their ability to use orchestras just as well as synthesizers, Keith’s hard-driving guitar work, and Mick’s way with words and his fiery vocal energy are among the most outstanding musical treasures of the 20th century. So I wasn’t surprised to hear that they worked hard on every track, waking up in the middle of the night, humming tunes that would become “Jumpin’ Jack Flash,” “Gimme Shelter” and “Wild Horses.”
I imagine that nothing now is a surprise about the Stones. Still, in his capable prose, Spitz brings out the most audacious and intimate stories about these men and their lives. He gives credence to the fact that, despite the bluster of their sassy, street-tough personas, there are hearts beating inside those guys and deep thoughts ringing in their heads. Yes, the ding of cash registers and their massive fortune play a role in this story. But in the middle of their careers, it was about not just how to stay on top, but how to top what they had done.
Not every experiment has gone well, and the guys who made my desert island pick are no longer the ones who do the giant stadium tours. But THE ROLLING STONES: THE BIOGRAPHY is a fascinating portrait of a band and a system that does not exist now in the rock world, as it has been eclipsed by so many other genres (no matter how hard Geese and Foo Fighters try to keep it going). Bob Spitz has written the truest and most complete history of the world’s most dangerous band.
Reviewed by Jana Siciliano
June 4, 2026
This has got to be the saddest one-star review I’ve ever written. Bob Spitz wrote what I always thought of as my favorite The Beatles: The Biography Beatles book . He even wrote a Led Zeppelin: The Biography Led Zeppelin book a couple years ago that I thoroughly enjoyed, considering that I’m not really that much of a Zep fan. But this time, Mr. Spitz has screwed the proverbial pooch with a lazy book rife with errors.
Maybe this shouldn’t be that much of a surprise. I remember skimming the Amazon reviews of that Beatles book when I first read it a couple of decades ago and some of them mentioned errors in the book. I didn’t catch any, but I’m more a Beatle fan than a Beatle maniac. Mistakes could have easily gotten by me. But I am quite the Stonesophile and I can definitely point out the errors in this book, of which there are far too many and far too dumb.
First, the fuck-ups; Mr. Spitz mentions the double-sided single “Ruby Tuesday” and “Let’s Spend the Night Together.” A page or two later, he’s calling “Ruby Tuesday” “Lady Jane,” a Stones song that wasn’t released as a single. He does it not once, but twice. When discussing the album Sticky Fingers, he talks about the song “Midnight Mile,” not once, but twice. It’s called “Moonlight Mile.” “Memory Motel,” on Black & Blue is, all of a sudden, called “Memory Hotel,” which is absolutely stupid! It’s the two “m” sounds that make it work! Just how hard is it to read the back of a frickin’ album cover? Does Bob know that they actually write the names of the songs on the back?
Then there’s the stupid and sloppy factual errors. He says that the 1972 Stones tour is Mick Taylor’s North America debut. You wrote a chapter about the ‘69 Altamont concert! Who the hell do you think was playing guitar? Mickey Dolenz? No, it was Mick *$%#ing Taylor! He says that Ron Wood was a member of the Small Faces, which is wrong. He was a member of the Faces. Different band.
And then there’s the book itself. He does what every other Stones-centric author before him has done, which is oversaturate his book in the ‘60s mythos. It’s past the halfway point just six years into their career by the time he gets to the aforementioned Altamont, at which Mick Taylor played guitar! He hits a little on the ‘70s, mentions the ‘80s and then does an “and the rest” for the band and its next 36 years. You’d think events like a concert movie filmed by legendary director Martin Scorsese would get a single mention. But, no. Nothing. From facts to contents, this book rarely raises above the level of “half-assed.” Considering the books of his I’ve read before, Mr. Spitz should be ashamed of this.
Maybe this shouldn’t be that much of a surprise. I remember skimming the Amazon reviews of that Beatles book when I first read it a couple of decades ago and some of them mentioned errors in the book. I didn’t catch any, but I’m more a Beatle fan than a Beatle maniac. Mistakes could have easily gotten by me. But I am quite the Stonesophile and I can definitely point out the errors in this book, of which there are far too many and far too dumb.
First, the fuck-ups; Mr. Spitz mentions the double-sided single “Ruby Tuesday” and “Let’s Spend the Night Together.” A page or two later, he’s calling “Ruby Tuesday” “Lady Jane,” a Stones song that wasn’t released as a single. He does it not once, but twice. When discussing the album Sticky Fingers, he talks about the song “Midnight Mile,” not once, but twice. It’s called “Moonlight Mile.” “Memory Motel,” on Black & Blue is, all of a sudden, called “Memory Hotel,” which is absolutely stupid! It’s the two “m” sounds that make it work! Just how hard is it to read the back of a frickin’ album cover? Does Bob know that they actually write the names of the songs on the back?
Then there’s the stupid and sloppy factual errors. He says that the 1972 Stones tour is Mick Taylor’s North America debut. You wrote a chapter about the ‘69 Altamont concert! Who the hell do you think was playing guitar? Mickey Dolenz? No, it was Mick *$%#ing Taylor! He says that Ron Wood was a member of the Small Faces, which is wrong. He was a member of the Faces. Different band.
And then there’s the book itself. He does what every other Stones-centric author before him has done, which is oversaturate his book in the ‘60s mythos. It’s past the halfway point just six years into their career by the time he gets to the aforementioned Altamont, at which Mick Taylor played guitar! He hits a little on the ‘70s, mentions the ‘80s and then does an “and the rest” for the band and its next 36 years. You’d think events like a concert movie filmed by legendary director Martin Scorsese would get a single mention. But, no. Nothing. From facts to contents, this book rarely raises above the level of “half-assed.” Considering the books of his I’ve read before, Mr. Spitz should be ashamed of this.
May 12, 2026
A totally readable new biography of The Rolling Stones that unfortunately offers little new insight or a unique viewpoint. Spitz does a good job of straight reporting. It's not exactly warts and all (nor would I want that), but he doesn't hold these folks up as heroes either.
My main wish is that he spent more time on the last fifty years. While I understand that the most intense and relevant period of the Stones ends in the early 80s, I'm very interested in who they are as a band in recent decades. Unfortunately, we just get a whirlwind couple chapters of 'This happened, and then this happened.' In one case, he claims the Stones played Coachella (they didn't ... they played a festival on the same grounds as Coachella and put on by the same folks who put on Coachella) and when he lists the years they toured, he doesn't include 2013 (they did). That makes me wonder if he missed the mark elsewhere and I just didn't have the knowledge to recognize he got the facts wrong.
Still, it's hard to argue too much with what overall is a well-paced narrative that gets just the right depth for even a casual fan. If you're not familiar with the Stones story, this fresh biography would be a good place to start. If you are familiar, you may feel like you've read it before - but honestly, it's a good enough reason to dig back into the discography.
Other notes:
I don't want to spend much time on the problematic parts of the Stones history. It's well-traveled ground and Spitz doesn't shy away from reporting on it. That said, there is some boomer rock guy language he uses in the writing that wasn't great. One I flagged was mention of "a spidery number from Nicaragua named Bianca Pérez-Mora de Macías. Bianca, only twenty-five at the time, had been what anthropologists might call 'around the block.'"
I really liked reading about touring and stage production in the period before that became so standardized. It was real Wild West stuff, but Jagger took that opportunity to get creative and interesting, sometimes one show at a time. Wish I could have seen some.
Allegedly, Beethoven once said "To play a wrong note is insignificant. To play without passion is inexcusable." I'll remember that.
Generally speaking, I really liked reading all the business stuff, another reason I wish he had spent more time on later decades because that part was missing from the 80s onward.
My main wish is that he spent more time on the last fifty years. While I understand that the most intense and relevant period of the Stones ends in the early 80s, I'm very interested in who they are as a band in recent decades. Unfortunately, we just get a whirlwind couple chapters of 'This happened, and then this happened.' In one case, he claims the Stones played Coachella (they didn't ... they played a festival on the same grounds as Coachella and put on by the same folks who put on Coachella) and when he lists the years they toured, he doesn't include 2013 (they did). That makes me wonder if he missed the mark elsewhere and I just didn't have the knowledge to recognize he got the facts wrong.
Still, it's hard to argue too much with what overall is a well-paced narrative that gets just the right depth for even a casual fan. If you're not familiar with the Stones story, this fresh biography would be a good place to start. If you are familiar, you may feel like you've read it before - but honestly, it's a good enough reason to dig back into the discography.
Other notes:
I don't want to spend much time on the problematic parts of the Stones history. It's well-traveled ground and Spitz doesn't shy away from reporting on it. That said, there is some boomer rock guy language he uses in the writing that wasn't great. One I flagged was mention of "a spidery number from Nicaragua named Bianca Pérez-Mora de Macías. Bianca, only twenty-five at the time, had been what anthropologists might call 'around the block.'"
I really liked reading about touring and stage production in the period before that became so standardized. It was real Wild West stuff, but Jagger took that opportunity to get creative and interesting, sometimes one show at a time. Wish I could have seen some.
Allegedly, Beethoven once said "To play a wrong note is insignificant. To play without passion is inexcusable." I'll remember that.
Generally speaking, I really liked reading all the business stuff, another reason I wish he had spent more time on later decades because that part was missing from the 80s onward.
May 30, 2026
Bob Spitz has carved quite the little niche for himself, writing bios of big-name British rock and roll bands. Unlike the previous bands he's covered (Beatles, Led Zep), the Rolling Stones don't have the neat, tidy decade-ish long time line to focus on. So how do you handle a band that's lasted six-fold as long? Simple - you don't give equal time to all eras. It's 600 pages, and Brian Jones is booted from the band around page 300, Altamont takes place just before page 400, and Bill Wyman leaves the band around page 580.
Basically, the book spends plenty of time in the 1960s, the pace picks up a little bit in the 1970s, considerably more in the 1980s, and the last 30-some years are essentially an epilogue. (Amazing fact: Bill Wyman's departure from the and is now closer to the band's first gig than it is to the present day).
The above isn't meant as a criticism. Would anyone really want to give A Bigger Band equal time to Sticky Fingers? You get plenty of details on the ups and downs of the band, especially it's principle members - Mick, Keith, and in the 1960s Brian Jones. You get some on Bill and Charlie and Ron and other Mick, but they're background figures, as are some key managers and producers, and girlfriends/wives.
The main concern I have with the book is it gets so lost in the details that it can lose sight of the bigger picture. For instance, around the late 1970s or so, the band became more respectable. Even in the mid-1970s, authorities were constantly trying to bust them on tour, but that just went away. For that matter, when they first began, they were bigtime into the blues, and even disdained rock and roll. Well, clearly that changed, but it's just a thing that changes on them. Also, because it's so detailed, it's a little annoying when it leaves out some details that I know. (For instance: Ron Wood only became a full-time profit-sharing Stone (as opposed to an employee) after Bill Wyman left - and Mick even voted against it then. Or: one reason the Hell's Angels targeted the black fan at Altamont is because he came with a white girlfriend).
Still, it is a very good recounting of the Stones and their times. It is a very good read.
Basically, the book spends plenty of time in the 1960s, the pace picks up a little bit in the 1970s, considerably more in the 1980s, and the last 30-some years are essentially an epilogue. (Amazing fact: Bill Wyman's departure from the and is now closer to the band's first gig than it is to the present day).
The above isn't meant as a criticism. Would anyone really want to give A Bigger Band equal time to Sticky Fingers? You get plenty of details on the ups and downs of the band, especially it's principle members - Mick, Keith, and in the 1960s Brian Jones. You get some on Bill and Charlie and Ron and other Mick, but they're background figures, as are some key managers and producers, and girlfriends/wives.
The main concern I have with the book is it gets so lost in the details that it can lose sight of the bigger picture. For instance, around the late 1970s or so, the band became more respectable. Even in the mid-1970s, authorities were constantly trying to bust them on tour, but that just went away. For that matter, when they first began, they were bigtime into the blues, and even disdained rock and roll. Well, clearly that changed, but it's just a thing that changes on them. Also, because it's so detailed, it's a little annoying when it leaves out some details that I know. (For instance: Ron Wood only became a full-time profit-sharing Stone (as opposed to an employee) after Bill Wyman left - and Mick even voted against it then. Or: one reason the Hell's Angels targeted the black fan at Altamont is because he came with a white girlfriend).
Still, it is a very good recounting of the Stones and their times. It is a very good read.
June 8, 2026
“The Rolling Stones: The Biography by Bob Spitz is an expansive and meticulously researched account of one of the most influential bands in the history of popular music, The Rolling Stones.
Drawing on decades of music history and extensive archival research, Spitz revisits the band’s origin story and long cultural trajectory with a critical and often revisionist lens. Rather than simply repeating established narratives, the biography challenges familiar myths and reframes key moments in the band’s history, offering readers a more complex understanding of how their legacy was built and sustained.
A central focus of the book is the creative and personal partnership between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, whose volatile but enduring relationship forms the emotional and artistic core of the band. Spitz explores how this dynamic shaped not only the group’s sound but also its longevity, resilience, and internal tensions over time.
The book also situates the band within the broader history of rock music, tracing their connections to blues traditions and the cultural ecosystem that shaped the British Invasion era. Figures such as Brian Jones and Mick Taylor are portrayed as integral yet often tragic contributors to the band’s evolution, highlighting the costs associated with sustained artistic ambition and fame.
Spitz’s writing emphasizes both the creative brilliance and the darker undercurrents of the band’s journey, including personal conflicts, industry pressures, and the toll of decades in the public eye. This balanced approach gives the biography both narrative drive and historical weight.
At its core, the book is not only a portrait of a band but also a study of artistic survival, reinvention, and the machinery of fame.
Overall, The Rolling Stones: The Biography is a comprehensive and compelling work of music journalism that will appeal to readers of rock history, cultural biography, and popular music studies. It offers a richly detailed and often provocative reassessment of a band whose influence continues to shape modern music.”
Drawing on decades of music history and extensive archival research, Spitz revisits the band’s origin story and long cultural trajectory with a critical and often revisionist lens. Rather than simply repeating established narratives, the biography challenges familiar myths and reframes key moments in the band’s history, offering readers a more complex understanding of how their legacy was built and sustained.
A central focus of the book is the creative and personal partnership between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, whose volatile but enduring relationship forms the emotional and artistic core of the band. Spitz explores how this dynamic shaped not only the group’s sound but also its longevity, resilience, and internal tensions over time.
The book also situates the band within the broader history of rock music, tracing their connections to blues traditions and the cultural ecosystem that shaped the British Invasion era. Figures such as Brian Jones and Mick Taylor are portrayed as integral yet often tragic contributors to the band’s evolution, highlighting the costs associated with sustained artistic ambition and fame.
Spitz’s writing emphasizes both the creative brilliance and the darker undercurrents of the band’s journey, including personal conflicts, industry pressures, and the toll of decades in the public eye. This balanced approach gives the biography both narrative drive and historical weight.
At its core, the book is not only a portrait of a band but also a study of artistic survival, reinvention, and the machinery of fame.
Overall, The Rolling Stones: The Biography is a comprehensive and compelling work of music journalism that will appeal to readers of rock history, cultural biography, and popular music studies. It offers a richly detailed and often provocative reassessment of a band whose influence continues to shape modern music.”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews