Wednesday, January 8, 2014
INTERESTING: Andrew Loog Oldham: the mastermind of The Rolling StonesAndrew Loog Oldham: the mastermind of The Rolling StonesAndrew Loog Oldham: the mastermind of The Rolling Stones...
Andrew Loog Oldham: the mastermind of The Rolling Stones
"The Beatles were The Beatles – the Stones were the Stones... A lot of folks liked both."
A hustler is only as good as his hustle, and in 1963, 19-year-old Andrew Loog Oldham
hit the mother lode. On the night of 23 April of that year, the budding
teen tycoon, having already successfully hawked himself to fashion
designer Mary Quant and Beatles manager Brian Epstein as a happening
hipster who knew a thing or two about a thing or two, walked into the
Crawdaddy Club in Richmond, England, and saw a six-piece blues band that
had everything he needed to capture the zeitgeist of the '60s.
Well, almost. Oldham made some key tweaks to the Rollin' Stones to ready them for mass consumption, such as convincing the group to add an all-important "g" to their name and dropping piano player Ian Stewart from their onstage lineup; and then there was the matter of the band's songwriting – which was nil. Oldham famously locked Mick Jagger and Keith Richards in a room until they had a self-penned gem (Tell Me) worthy of inclusion on the Stones' debut album.
That Oldham scored his boys a record deal at a better royalty rate than The Beatles, showing up his onetime employer, Epstein, quickly cemented his status as a shrewd dealmaker. But he had a true ear for the music, as well, and unlike Epstein, who was an awkward, sometimes unwelcome presence in the studio with The Beatles, Oldham produced all of The Rolling Stones' albums until 1966's Between The Buttons.
Oldham's parting with the Stones in 1967 was about as messy as those things usually go, and for most of the next few decades, it looked as if his final chapter had been written – it wasn't until the '90s that he kicked the drug habit that almost kicked him. His personal and public rehabilitation – a veritable phoenix rising from the ashes – began with a pair of crackling autobiographies, 2002's Stoned and 2003's 2Stoned, which soon led to what he jokes is his "first regular job," DJing for Steven Van Zandt's Underground Garage on SiriusXM.
Coinciding (coincidentally) with The Rolling Stones' 50th anniversary celebrations of last year, Oldham, who has made Bogota, Columbia his home since the mid-'80s, is back in the limelight now more than ever with two fascinating offerings. There's Charlie Is My Darling, a 1965 documentary of the Stones (originally produced by Oldham and directed by Peter Whitehead) that captures the group in a mini tour of Ireland with an intimacy that approaches poetic voyeurism; and next we have Stone Free, his third book, an immensely entertaining examination of the bigger-than-life show-biz masters (Epstein, Larry Parnes, Phil Spector, Albert Grossman, among others) who paved the way for him. (You can order Stone Free, from Escargot Books, right here.)
In the following interview, conducted via e-mail, Oldham holds forth on a variety of topics: some of the legends he profiled in Stone Free, the difference between impresarios and "pimpresarios," how he came to film the Stones, working with the band in the studio, what Jagger-Richards songs he wishes The Beatles would have covered and much more.
So Wikipedia calls you, among other things, an "impresario" – which I guess you were at one time. Is that how you saw yourself?
"Never did. Impresarios were old farts in an old game. Anyway, an impresario usually refers to fellows – or gals – who present something, an attraction to the public at a specific venue. My venue was somewhere between ether and the world."
As opposed to "impresario," undoubtedly you'd prefer your own term: "pimpresario." The prefix gets a bad rap, but you don't see it that way, do you?
"No, I think if we strip away the protective layer to all our functions, eventually the two functions of pimps and whores are applicable, and that fact appreciated, a lot of the crap gets removed, and life is simple. Priests are pimps for Jesus, and lawyers are whores for the judge and/or their clients. And they are supposed to be the icing on the toxic cake we all want slices of."
Oldham shares a laugh with Mick Jagger. © BobBonisPhotographs @2269 Productions, Inc. - NotFadeAwayGallery.com
Are there any current "pimpresarios" who remind you of yourself in the '60s?
"Tough. The guy who manages Justin Bieber, maybe – he should be. They did a great thing with that Canadian girl Carly Rae something… Jespen? He also got – I mean the manager – criticized for doing an interview with either Rolling Stone or the New York Times. Taking space away from the act can be fatal for a manager, although maybe Bieber doesn't mind him talking to the old folks.
"There is a big difference between the times and people I write about in Stone Free. Back in the '60s, in the beginning, a manager spoke for his act. Now, in this hurdy-gurdy, space-slurping tech world we function in, an artist is required to be able to promote themselves, to be able to handle all aspects of the selling and the media. JD Salinger would not get a deal.
"It's whores again. The selling is 90 percent of the gig. The manager is the bean counter and the bad guy. In the beginning, I had to shout about the Stones or Marianne Faithful or whomever. The act just did the playing and singing. Now they all have to do it all from the giddy-up. The public is not interested in the bean counter unless he marries the act's mum."
You also don't have a problem with the word "hustler." But what about a bad hustler, one who is unskilled or not transparent enough? Is there some degree of shame in being a clumsy hustler?
"Well, once upon a time, the art of hustle was given to a precious few. Then it was adopted by the gelled, four-buttoned majority malaise. They would say, 'I hustled him, because they preferred that to the truth: 'I fucked him.' They got it wrong. A good hustle and a good hustler leave no victims."
You've also been described as an "enfante terrible" of the London pop scene. Accurate? Did you enjoy your notoriety?
"Sure did. Nothing like that French tab. It meant you were not toeing the line, following the party orders, refusing to be suppressed into the ordinary."
Oldham (seated) and engineer Dave Hassinger (standing) in the studio with the Stones. © BobBonisPhotographs @2269 Productions, Inc. - NotFadeAwayGallery.com
Let's get into Charlie Is My Darling. How did it come together initially? Was the intention to get the band more comfortable in front of the cameras, with an eye of doing theatrical films, such as A Clockwork Orange?
"Completely. It was a screen test for the Stones made via our own private studio – i.e. my producing it and therefore controlling how or if it was seen. I wanted the Stones to get used to the cameras, and I wanted to see which one of them the camera took to. The most impressive was Charlie Watts, hence the title."
Why wasn't the film released at the time? I imagine that it would've been very well received.
"Where? It certainly would not have done business in the cinemas. A couple of art houses maybe, but it would not have been worthwhile, and in addition, it would have been contrary to our agenda. We were now having hits. On top of that, the other avenues supposedly open to us were not – the BBC, etc. The establishment still loathed the Stones and hoped we'd go away."
Charlie was filmed around the same time as the Dylan doc Don't Look Back. Were there any rock or pop documentaries you used as a reference? The art form was still in its infancy.
"Not really. If anything, French cinema influenced me – the tackiness of Godard. But it was not really in my hands – Peter Whitehead was filming it – so you really have to stand back and let him get on with it."
The scene with Mick and Keith working on Sittin' On A Fence – is that typical of how their songwriting sessions went at the time? You're with them in the room – what kinds of opinions or suggestions would you offer?
"It was not typical because there were cameras in the room. I don't think I offered suggestions on many occasions. On As Tears Go By I did for sure. Generally, I just offered enthusiasm and belief in their ability to become the writers they became."
Andrew Loog Oldham, 2012. © Betina La Plante
The footage of the band backstage is surprising in how innocent everything seemed. The group tunes up, puts on a bit of makeup, signs an autograph for an elderly woman – by '72, things would be quite different.
"Wouldn't it just? That's part of what makes Charlie such an original and special item. It is of the time. The '60s in ' 65 was a small club. 1972 is really another chapter of the '60s with a whole lot more of the world joining in."
As depicted in the film, the fans at the shows went absolutely crazy – rushing the stage and literally attacking the band. Were the Stones ever concerned for their safety?
"No."
The picture shows the group being absolutely on fire on stage. Did they ever express irritation that people weren't listening to them at concerts?
"Not that I recall. As long as they bought the records, I suppose. They could listen at home and scream at the shows."
Brian's demeanor in the film doesn't really suggest the enormous problems he would soon have. He seems happy and engaged. Did you sense that trouble could be around the corner for him?
"Have a look at it again. That's not happy."
"I was inspired by the Stones," says Oldham, seen standing behind Keith Richards. "I served that inspiration." © BobBonisPhotographs @2269 Productions, Inc. - NotFadeAwayGallery.com
You had a huge interest in a film version of A Clockwork Orange starring the Stones. How far along did that ever get? Was the band all on board?
"It didn't. I never even got my foot in the door. The rights were in the hands of lawyers who sold it to Kubrick who fancied Malcolm McDowell who fancied himself."
What went into your decision to cast the Stones as the "anti-Beatles"? Was there a definite anti-Beatles faction in England at the time? I always thought it was possible to like both groups.
"I didn't. That is a particular misconception that is unfortunately promoted today by the Stones. Maybe they have bad memories. The Beatles were The Beatles – the Stones were the Stones, and as you say, a lot of folks liked both. I've seen Mick and/or Keith both say that I cast them against The Beatles. Not true. I cast them as they were. I had more respect for the Stones than to compare them to something else."
On early records, The Beatles were looking to Motown, The Beach Boys and Dylan. Who were the Stones looking to as either competition or inspiration? Who were you inspired by?
"Who I was inspired by did not enter the picture. I was inspired by the Stones. I served that inspiration. My own private inspirations were not appropriate except as a force of energy for me to use."
On the band's debut album, Phil Spector is credited as playing maracas on Little By Little. Did he offer any production advice or insights?
"He advised me to own the masters – good advice. He also played a great bass on Play With Fire."
Mick and Keith became the songwriters, but what was the relationship between Keith and Brian as guitarists? When they got in the studio, did they have fun playing together?
"You can hear it. During the two periods they enjoyed playing together the results were magic. The in-between period was pretty good as well – Between The Buttons, for example."
Your poetry for the album December's Children – what did the band think of it?
"I never asked."
Although Aftermath had some great singles, it's the first album that really feels like just that – an album. Was the group starting to think of the album as a sophisticated piece of art unto itself rather than just a collection of singles?
"The Stones always attempted and, on most occasions, succeeded in making the three parts of the art seamless and respectful of each of them – the road, the records and the presenting of themselves in the media. Most bands did not have their hands on the pulse of all three."
What went into the decision to record Aftermath in California?
"That was our new recording home, RCA on Iver and Sunset. Great time, great Dave Hassinger, great Jack Nitzsche, great weather."
The song Goin' Home is over 11 minutes long. Was that precedent setting for the time?
"It just sounded right to keep it going at the time, in that moment, and luckily Charlie saw me waving and kept it going."
Back to your book – in one passage, you mention being impressed by the "profundity of superficiality." That seems like a contradiction...
"I was told by my book editor that I never met a cliché I did not embrace. I also like a question of opposites. Opposites attract."
One of the master hustlers you write about is ballet impresario Sergei Diaghilev - how do you think he would have fared in rock 'n' roll?
"I think he fared very well. There's something of the wild card in Epstein, Parnes, McLaren, Jerry Brandt and a couple of Americans I did not write about – Artie Ripp and the who sold Bruce Springsteen to John Hammond at CBS. I nearly forgot his name, a great disservice – Mike Appel. Now, boy, he had as much faith in Bruce as Diaghilev did in Nijinsky or Erte or Stravinsky.
"Kit Lamber's father composed and conducted for Diaghilev. Now, where Kit and Chris Stamp showed The Who what could be was quite amazing. We were all looking over our shoulders when that mob showed up."
With Underground Garage maven Steven Van Zandt, 2012. © Betina La Plante
Pauline Kael compared the first screening of Last Tango In Paris to the debut of La Sacre du Primtemps, the latter of which Diaghilev presented. Both events disturbed audiences deeply – like rock 'n' roll used to. Do you think we're incapable of being shocked by art anymore?
"I was shocked by Kanye West on the 12-12-12 thing, but I think that's not the shock you are looking for. Lady Gaga at the Grammys a couple of years ago – that yellow theme was just amazing. The problem with rock 'n' roll being able to shock us is that there is no school on the road anymore. You gotta deliver all at once, so pop will triumph over rock.
"Do we realize how many state fairs Elvis played before he did The Steve Allen Show? A whole slew. Same with The Beatles in Hamburg. Who's the last band that did that gruel? The Police? I'm not talking about stuff like Dave Matthews – that's like Woody Herman or Glenn Miller."
You write about Malcolm McLaren, who said that "anybody can be a Sex Pistol." Do you think he was being intentionally ironic? Surely, you wouldn't have said that "anybody can be a Rolling Stone."
"We must remember that not being able to play was an inherent part of the Sex Pistols' makeup. With the Stones, the opposite was true… and they wore makeup."
You claim that integrity bothered Albert Grossman. Yet he fought fiercely for Dylan's artistic freedom. Something of a paradox?
"Did I? In those words? Well, he could not tell Dylan to go out and shoe-shuffle and sing Louis Prima songs, so he saw the glove that fit Dylan and wore it. That involved fighting folks to allow his artist to do whatever he wanted.
"Dear Albert gave that same advice to a lot of acts who were not as strong, as focused, as viable as Dylan, and it's tough to recall their names. Some acts need to be told what to do, and that's not a put-down, though as a gig it's pretty unrewarding."
"I've seen Mick and/or Keith both say that I cast them against The Beatles," says Oldham. "Not true." © BobBonisPhotographs @2269 Productions, Inc. - NotFadeAwayGallery.com
The names that Larry Parnes gave to his stable of stars – Billy Fury, Vince Eager, Lance Fortune, etc. – did they seem cool or silly at the time? I guess Dickie Pride got the best or worst name, depending on one's point of view.
"Dickie Pride had talent, and so did Duffy Power. Both came out of the jazz and R&B cycle. Bully Fury was James Dean. It's not any different from Fabian, is it?"
Your chapter on Phil Spector is riveting and heartbreakingly personal. You don't take a stand on his guilt or innocence, but for a lot of us, when we heard the news of Lana Clarkson's murder, it didn't come as a big surprise – it's as if we expected it. Has the tragic myth eclipsed the music?
"I always say that come Christmas I won't play Phil's Christmas album, for obvious reasons. But come Christmas, Ella is always good, The Beach Boys have managed to remind us what facile and juvenile pricks they are, so it's always back to Phil. C'mon – Darlene Love saying, 'But it's December the 24th and I'm longing to be up north' puts a pop lump in my throat and a tear in my eye every year."
You related quite strongly to Tony Curtis' character, Sid Falco, in Sweet Smell Of Success. Where there any real-life JJ Hunsecker's in your world?
"Interestingly, yes. John Stephen, the king of Carnarby Street clothing stores. I went into a meeting with him when I was 17, unprepared. He took no pity on my age. He just snarled and spat me out on the street for wasting his time and not coming up to what being in a room with him required. An important, very important lesson that I'll never forget."
Last question, and it's on the Stones: The band famously covered I Wanna Be Your Man. Tell me, which Jagger-Richards song would you have loved to hear The Beatles cover?
"Great question. Never been asked that in my life. Paul McCartney could do a tremendous Ruby Tuesday, and George could have done a great She Smiled Sweetly. John Lennon doing 19th Nervous Breakdown. I was going to suggest Something Happened To Me for Ringo, but without Richard Perry?"
Well, almost. Oldham made some key tweaks to the Rollin' Stones to ready them for mass consumption, such as convincing the group to add an all-important "g" to their name and dropping piano player Ian Stewart from their onstage lineup; and then there was the matter of the band's songwriting – which was nil. Oldham famously locked Mick Jagger and Keith Richards in a room until they had a self-penned gem (Tell Me) worthy of inclusion on the Stones' debut album.
That Oldham scored his boys a record deal at a better royalty rate than The Beatles, showing up his onetime employer, Epstein, quickly cemented his status as a shrewd dealmaker. But he had a true ear for the music, as well, and unlike Epstein, who was an awkward, sometimes unwelcome presence in the studio with The Beatles, Oldham produced all of The Rolling Stones' albums until 1966's Between The Buttons.
Oldham's parting with the Stones in 1967 was about as messy as those things usually go, and for most of the next few decades, it looked as if his final chapter had been written – it wasn't until the '90s that he kicked the drug habit that almost kicked him. His personal and public rehabilitation – a veritable phoenix rising from the ashes – began with a pair of crackling autobiographies, 2002's Stoned and 2003's 2Stoned, which soon led to what he jokes is his "first regular job," DJing for Steven Van Zandt's Underground Garage on SiriusXM.
Coinciding (coincidentally) with The Rolling Stones' 50th anniversary celebrations of last year, Oldham, who has made Bogota, Columbia his home since the mid-'80s, is back in the limelight now more than ever with two fascinating offerings. There's Charlie Is My Darling, a 1965 documentary of the Stones (originally produced by Oldham and directed by Peter Whitehead) that captures the group in a mini tour of Ireland with an intimacy that approaches poetic voyeurism; and next we have Stone Free, his third book, an immensely entertaining examination of the bigger-than-life show-biz masters (Epstein, Larry Parnes, Phil Spector, Albert Grossman, among others) who paved the way for him. (You can order Stone Free, from Escargot Books, right here.)
In the following interview, conducted via e-mail, Oldham holds forth on a variety of topics: some of the legends he profiled in Stone Free, the difference between impresarios and "pimpresarios," how he came to film the Stones, working with the band in the studio, what Jagger-Richards songs he wishes The Beatles would have covered and much more.
So Wikipedia calls you, among other things, an "impresario" – which I guess you were at one time. Is that how you saw yourself?
"Never did. Impresarios were old farts in an old game. Anyway, an impresario usually refers to fellows – or gals – who present something, an attraction to the public at a specific venue. My venue was somewhere between ether and the world."
As opposed to "impresario," undoubtedly you'd prefer your own term: "pimpresario." The prefix gets a bad rap, but you don't see it that way, do you?
"No, I think if we strip away the protective layer to all our functions, eventually the two functions of pimps and whores are applicable, and that fact appreciated, a lot of the crap gets removed, and life is simple. Priests are pimps for Jesus, and lawyers are whores for the judge and/or their clients. And they are supposed to be the icing on the toxic cake we all want slices of."
Oldham shares a laugh with Mick Jagger. © BobBonisPhotographs @2269 Productions, Inc. - NotFadeAwayGallery.com
Are there any current "pimpresarios" who remind you of yourself in the '60s?
"Tough. The guy who manages Justin Bieber, maybe – he should be. They did a great thing with that Canadian girl Carly Rae something… Jespen? He also got – I mean the manager – criticized for doing an interview with either Rolling Stone or the New York Times. Taking space away from the act can be fatal for a manager, although maybe Bieber doesn't mind him talking to the old folks.
"There is a big difference between the times and people I write about in Stone Free. Back in the '60s, in the beginning, a manager spoke for his act. Now, in this hurdy-gurdy, space-slurping tech world we function in, an artist is required to be able to promote themselves, to be able to handle all aspects of the selling and the media. JD Salinger would not get a deal.
"It's whores again. The selling is 90 percent of the gig. The manager is the bean counter and the bad guy. In the beginning, I had to shout about the Stones or Marianne Faithful or whomever. The act just did the playing and singing. Now they all have to do it all from the giddy-up. The public is not interested in the bean counter unless he marries the act's mum."
You also don't have a problem with the word "hustler." But what about a bad hustler, one who is unskilled or not transparent enough? Is there some degree of shame in being a clumsy hustler?
"Well, once upon a time, the art of hustle was given to a precious few. Then it was adopted by the gelled, four-buttoned majority malaise. They would say, 'I hustled him, because they preferred that to the truth: 'I fucked him.' They got it wrong. A good hustle and a good hustler leave no victims."
You've also been described as an "enfante terrible" of the London pop scene. Accurate? Did you enjoy your notoriety?
"Sure did. Nothing like that French tab. It meant you were not toeing the line, following the party orders, refusing to be suppressed into the ordinary."
Oldham (seated) and engineer Dave Hassinger (standing) in the studio with the Stones. © BobBonisPhotographs @2269 Productions, Inc. - NotFadeAwayGallery.com
Let's get into Charlie Is My Darling. How did it come together initially? Was the intention to get the band more comfortable in front of the cameras, with an eye of doing theatrical films, such as A Clockwork Orange?
"Completely. It was a screen test for the Stones made via our own private studio – i.e. my producing it and therefore controlling how or if it was seen. I wanted the Stones to get used to the cameras, and I wanted to see which one of them the camera took to. The most impressive was Charlie Watts, hence the title."
Why wasn't the film released at the time? I imagine that it would've been very well received.
"Where? It certainly would not have done business in the cinemas. A couple of art houses maybe, but it would not have been worthwhile, and in addition, it would have been contrary to our agenda. We were now having hits. On top of that, the other avenues supposedly open to us were not – the BBC, etc. The establishment still loathed the Stones and hoped we'd go away."
Charlie was filmed around the same time as the Dylan doc Don't Look Back. Were there any rock or pop documentaries you used as a reference? The art form was still in its infancy.
"Not really. If anything, French cinema influenced me – the tackiness of Godard. But it was not really in my hands – Peter Whitehead was filming it – so you really have to stand back and let him get on with it."
The scene with Mick and Keith working on Sittin' On A Fence – is that typical of how their songwriting sessions went at the time? You're with them in the room – what kinds of opinions or suggestions would you offer?
"It was not typical because there were cameras in the room. I don't think I offered suggestions on many occasions. On As Tears Go By I did for sure. Generally, I just offered enthusiasm and belief in their ability to become the writers they became."
Andrew Loog Oldham, 2012. © Betina La Plante
The footage of the band backstage is surprising in how innocent everything seemed. The group tunes up, puts on a bit of makeup, signs an autograph for an elderly woman – by '72, things would be quite different.
"Wouldn't it just? That's part of what makes Charlie such an original and special item. It is of the time. The '60s in ' 65 was a small club. 1972 is really another chapter of the '60s with a whole lot more of the world joining in."
As depicted in the film, the fans at the shows went absolutely crazy – rushing the stage and literally attacking the band. Were the Stones ever concerned for their safety?
"No."
The picture shows the group being absolutely on fire on stage. Did they ever express irritation that people weren't listening to them at concerts?
"Not that I recall. As long as they bought the records, I suppose. They could listen at home and scream at the shows."
Brian's demeanor in the film doesn't really suggest the enormous problems he would soon have. He seems happy and engaged. Did you sense that trouble could be around the corner for him?
"Have a look at it again. That's not happy."
"I was inspired by the Stones," says Oldham, seen standing behind Keith Richards. "I served that inspiration." © BobBonisPhotographs @2269 Productions, Inc. - NotFadeAwayGallery.com
You had a huge interest in a film version of A Clockwork Orange starring the Stones. How far along did that ever get? Was the band all on board?
"It didn't. I never even got my foot in the door. The rights were in the hands of lawyers who sold it to Kubrick who fancied Malcolm McDowell who fancied himself."
What went into your decision to cast the Stones as the "anti-Beatles"? Was there a definite anti-Beatles faction in England at the time? I always thought it was possible to like both groups.
"I didn't. That is a particular misconception that is unfortunately promoted today by the Stones. Maybe they have bad memories. The Beatles were The Beatles – the Stones were the Stones, and as you say, a lot of folks liked both. I've seen Mick and/or Keith both say that I cast them against The Beatles. Not true. I cast them as they were. I had more respect for the Stones than to compare them to something else."
On early records, The Beatles were looking to Motown, The Beach Boys and Dylan. Who were the Stones looking to as either competition or inspiration? Who were you inspired by?
"Who I was inspired by did not enter the picture. I was inspired by the Stones. I served that inspiration. My own private inspirations were not appropriate except as a force of energy for me to use."
On the band's debut album, Phil Spector is credited as playing maracas on Little By Little. Did he offer any production advice or insights?
"He advised me to own the masters – good advice. He also played a great bass on Play With Fire."
Mick and Keith became the songwriters, but what was the relationship between Keith and Brian as guitarists? When they got in the studio, did they have fun playing together?
"You can hear it. During the two periods they enjoyed playing together the results were magic. The in-between period was pretty good as well – Between The Buttons, for example."
Your poetry for the album December's Children – what did the band think of it?
"I never asked."
Although Aftermath had some great singles, it's the first album that really feels like just that – an album. Was the group starting to think of the album as a sophisticated piece of art unto itself rather than just a collection of singles?
"The Stones always attempted and, on most occasions, succeeded in making the three parts of the art seamless and respectful of each of them – the road, the records and the presenting of themselves in the media. Most bands did not have their hands on the pulse of all three."
What went into the decision to record Aftermath in California?
"That was our new recording home, RCA on Iver and Sunset. Great time, great Dave Hassinger, great Jack Nitzsche, great weather."
The song Goin' Home is over 11 minutes long. Was that precedent setting for the time?
"It just sounded right to keep it going at the time, in that moment, and luckily Charlie saw me waving and kept it going."
Back to your book – in one passage, you mention being impressed by the "profundity of superficiality." That seems like a contradiction...
"I was told by my book editor that I never met a cliché I did not embrace. I also like a question of opposites. Opposites attract."
One of the master hustlers you write about is ballet impresario Sergei Diaghilev - how do you think he would have fared in rock 'n' roll?
"I think he fared very well. There's something of the wild card in Epstein, Parnes, McLaren, Jerry Brandt and a couple of Americans I did not write about – Artie Ripp and the who sold Bruce Springsteen to John Hammond at CBS. I nearly forgot his name, a great disservice – Mike Appel. Now, boy, he had as much faith in Bruce as Diaghilev did in Nijinsky or Erte or Stravinsky.
"Kit Lamber's father composed and conducted for Diaghilev. Now, where Kit and Chris Stamp showed The Who what could be was quite amazing. We were all looking over our shoulders when that mob showed up."
With Underground Garage maven Steven Van Zandt, 2012. © Betina La Plante
Pauline Kael compared the first screening of Last Tango In Paris to the debut of La Sacre du Primtemps, the latter of which Diaghilev presented. Both events disturbed audiences deeply – like rock 'n' roll used to. Do you think we're incapable of being shocked by art anymore?
"I was shocked by Kanye West on the 12-12-12 thing, but I think that's not the shock you are looking for. Lady Gaga at the Grammys a couple of years ago – that yellow theme was just amazing. The problem with rock 'n' roll being able to shock us is that there is no school on the road anymore. You gotta deliver all at once, so pop will triumph over rock.
"Do we realize how many state fairs Elvis played before he did The Steve Allen Show? A whole slew. Same with The Beatles in Hamburg. Who's the last band that did that gruel? The Police? I'm not talking about stuff like Dave Matthews – that's like Woody Herman or Glenn Miller."
You write about Malcolm McLaren, who said that "anybody can be a Sex Pistol." Do you think he was being intentionally ironic? Surely, you wouldn't have said that "anybody can be a Rolling Stone."
"We must remember that not being able to play was an inherent part of the Sex Pistols' makeup. With the Stones, the opposite was true… and they wore makeup."
You claim that integrity bothered Albert Grossman. Yet he fought fiercely for Dylan's artistic freedom. Something of a paradox?
"Did I? In those words? Well, he could not tell Dylan to go out and shoe-shuffle and sing Louis Prima songs, so he saw the glove that fit Dylan and wore it. That involved fighting folks to allow his artist to do whatever he wanted.
"Dear Albert gave that same advice to a lot of acts who were not as strong, as focused, as viable as Dylan, and it's tough to recall their names. Some acts need to be told what to do, and that's not a put-down, though as a gig it's pretty unrewarding."
"I've seen Mick and/or Keith both say that I cast them against The Beatles," says Oldham. "Not true." © BobBonisPhotographs @2269 Productions, Inc. - NotFadeAwayGallery.com
The names that Larry Parnes gave to his stable of stars – Billy Fury, Vince Eager, Lance Fortune, etc. – did they seem cool or silly at the time? I guess Dickie Pride got the best or worst name, depending on one's point of view.
"Dickie Pride had talent, and so did Duffy Power. Both came out of the jazz and R&B cycle. Bully Fury was James Dean. It's not any different from Fabian, is it?"
Your chapter on Phil Spector is riveting and heartbreakingly personal. You don't take a stand on his guilt or innocence, but for a lot of us, when we heard the news of Lana Clarkson's murder, it didn't come as a big surprise – it's as if we expected it. Has the tragic myth eclipsed the music?
"I always say that come Christmas I won't play Phil's Christmas album, for obvious reasons. But come Christmas, Ella is always good, The Beach Boys have managed to remind us what facile and juvenile pricks they are, so it's always back to Phil. C'mon – Darlene Love saying, 'But it's December the 24th and I'm longing to be up north' puts a pop lump in my throat and a tear in my eye every year."
You related quite strongly to Tony Curtis' character, Sid Falco, in Sweet Smell Of Success. Where there any real-life JJ Hunsecker's in your world?
"Interestingly, yes. John Stephen, the king of Carnarby Street clothing stores. I went into a meeting with him when I was 17, unprepared. He took no pity on my age. He just snarled and spat me out on the street for wasting his time and not coming up to what being in a room with him required. An important, very important lesson that I'll never forget."
Last question, and it's on the Stones: The band famously covered I Wanna Be Your Man. Tell me, which Jagger-Richards song would you have loved to hear The Beatles cover?
"Great question. Never been asked that in my life. Paul McCartney could do a tremendous Ruby Tuesday, and George could have done a great She Smiled Sweetly. John Lennon doing 19th Nervous Breakdown. I was going to suggest Something Happened To Me for Ringo, but without Richard Perry?"
'The Mammoth Book of the Rolling Stones' is a dull collection of Stones content...
'The Mammoth Book of the Rolling Stones' is a dull collection of Stones content
This article is part of a series of reviews of Rolling Stones books that were published in 2013.
With the existence of Internet search engines and websites like eBay to find old magazine articles, it's become almost quaint to think you have to wait for a book compilation of old magazine articles to find a specific article.
So in that regard, "The Mammoth Book of the Rolling Stones" edited by Sean Egan is an outdated concept that is not essential if you want the definitive book about the Rolling Stones.
"The Mammoth Book of the Rolling Stones" has no illustrations or photos, except for on the book's cover. That lack of visual appeal is a major drawback for anyone who has a short attention span or would prefer to have the original articles that do have artwork. And considering how highly visual the Rolling Stones are, it's a glaring omission to not having any photos or illustrations in a book about the Stones.
But the lack of photos or illustrations could easily be excused if the book had a lot of spark and originality.
What it comes down to is that "The Mammoth Book of the Rolling Stones" has Egan-written reviews of several Rolling Stones singles and albums (his critiques are unremarkable), and in between those reviews, there are select reprinted interviews and articles about the Rolling Stones that were written by other authors.
The best reprinted interview in the book is Robert Greenfield's 1971 Rolling Stone magazine interview with Keith Richards, back when he was calling himself Keith Richard and back when Rolling Stone used to publish lengthy feature articles.
Other feature articles include Barry Miles' 1968 interview with Mick Jagger for International Times, Robin Eggar's 1995 interview with Jagger for Esquire, Eggar's 2002 interview with Mick Taylor for Sunday Express Magazine and Mark Ellen's 2011 interview with Richards for The Word. The rest of the chapters are either Egan's reviews of Stones albums or music critics' often self-absorbed and pretentious musings about the Rolling Stones.
It's a random hodgepodge of Rolling Stones content presented in such a dull and dry manner that if you're interested in getting the articles with the Stones interviews (which are the best part of the book), then you're better off tracking down the original articles so you can see how they were originally published, not recycled in a boring anthology book without any artwork.
With the existence of Internet search engines and websites like eBay to find old magazine articles, it's become almost quaint to think you have to wait for a book compilation of old magazine articles to find a specific article.
So in that regard, "The Mammoth Book of the Rolling Stones" edited by Sean Egan is an outdated concept that is not essential if you want the definitive book about the Rolling Stones.
"The Mammoth Book of the Rolling Stones" has no illustrations or photos, except for on the book's cover. That lack of visual appeal is a major drawback for anyone who has a short attention span or would prefer to have the original articles that do have artwork. And considering how highly visual the Rolling Stones are, it's a glaring omission to not having any photos or illustrations in a book about the Stones.
But the lack of photos or illustrations could easily be excused if the book had a lot of spark and originality.
What it comes down to is that "The Mammoth Book of the Rolling Stones" has Egan-written reviews of several Rolling Stones singles and albums (his critiques are unremarkable), and in between those reviews, there are select reprinted interviews and articles about the Rolling Stones that were written by other authors.
The best reprinted interview in the book is Robert Greenfield's 1971 Rolling Stone magazine interview with Keith Richards, back when he was calling himself Keith Richard and back when Rolling Stone used to publish lengthy feature articles.
Other feature articles include Barry Miles' 1968 interview with Mick Jagger for International Times, Robin Eggar's 1995 interview with Jagger for Esquire, Eggar's 2002 interview with Mick Taylor for Sunday Express Magazine and Mark Ellen's 2011 interview with Richards for The Word. The rest of the chapters are either Egan's reviews of Stones albums or music critics' often self-absorbed and pretentious musings about the Rolling Stones.
It's a random hodgepodge of Rolling Stones content presented in such a dull and dry manner that if you're interested in getting the articles with the Stones interviews (which are the best part of the book), then you're better off tracking down the original articles so you can see how they were originally published, not recycled in a boring anthology book without any artwork.
'Rocks Off' is a book equivalent of a Rolling Stones greatest-hits compilation...
'Rocks Off' is a book equivalent of a Rolling Stones greatest-hits compilation
This review is part of a series of reviews of Rolling Stones books that have a 50th anniversary theme.
This article is part of a series of reviews of Rolling Stones books that were published in 2013.
"Rocks Off: 50 Tracks That Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones" by Bill Janovitz is just like buying a Rolling Stones greatest-hits compilation with 50 songs: If you're a die-hard Rolling Stones fan, then you're not going to discover anything new, you know there are numerous other Rolling Stones compilations that are bigger and better, and whether or not you want to buy it depends on how heavily you are into collecting Rolling Stones merchandise.
"Rocks Off" basically takes what are arguably 50 of the best-known Rolling Stones songs and devotes a chapter to each of the songs, with the story of how each song was written and recorded, what were any inspirations, and how the song was received by the public and critics.
The songs are listed in chronological order of release, and divided into "The Brian Jones Years," "The Mick Taylor Years" and "The Ronnie Wood Years" to distinguish how each guitarist represented a different musical era for the Stones.
The first song listed is "Tell Me." The last song is "Plundered My Soul," from the 2010 reissue of "Exile on Main Street."
The "Rocks Off" book was published in July 2013, so the book would have been better if it included either "Doom and Gloom" or "One More Shot," the two new studio tracks that were on the 2012 Rolling Stones greatest-hits compilation "GRRR!" ("Doom and Gloom" would be the more likely choice, since it was released as the compilation's first single.)
However, almost all of the Rolling Stones' biggest hits are included. There are some interesting choices (or omissions, depending on your perspective) for the Stones albums released in the 1980s and beyond: The book includes "All About You" from 1980's "Emotional Rescue" album but not the better-known title track. "She Was Hot" from 1983's "Undercover" album is included, but not the album's "Undercover of the Night," which many fans would argue is the better song. "Slipping Away" from 1989's "Steel Wheels" is included, not the better-known songs "Mixed Emotions" or "Rock and a Hard Place."
"Out of Tears" from 1994's "Voodoo Lounge" is included, but not "You Got Me Rocking" or "Love Is Strong." "Saint of Me" from 1997's "Bridges to Babylon" is included, but not "Anybody Seen My Baby," which was the album's lead single. "Biggest Mistake" from 2005's "A Bigger Bang" is included, but not "Streets of Love" or "Rough Justice." Of course, saying which song is "better" than another is highly subjective and debatable.
Here are the 50 songs that are included in the book:
Keith Richards' 2010 memoir "Life" just may be the best book on how Rolling Stones songs were written and recorded. Ever since "Life" was published, many books about the Rolling Stones songs are basically using Richards' memoir as a main source of information.
A good example is how Richards set the record straight about the story behind "Angie." He said the song was not about Angela Bowie, his daughter Angela, Angela's mother Anita Pallenberg or a mysterious woman named Angie. He just thought of the name Angie, on a whim, for the song's title. And so now every Rolling Stones book (such as "Rocks Off") that talks about the "Angie" will be quoting from Richards' memoir about how he wrote the song while detoxing from heroin and how it wasn't about a specific female. Before Richards' memoir came out, books about Rolling Stones songs could only speculate about what inspired the song.
The bottom line is that the book "Rocks Off" is a good read, but it's not very original and not essential if you compare it to all the other books and articles that have already been written about Rolling Stones songs. If you have plenty of Rolling Stones compilations and you still want more, or if you're new to discovering the Rolling Stones, then "Rocks Off" is your kind of book.
This article is part of a series of reviews of Rolling Stones books that were published in 2013.
"Rocks Off: 50 Tracks That Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones" by Bill Janovitz is just like buying a Rolling Stones greatest-hits compilation with 50 songs: If you're a die-hard Rolling Stones fan, then you're not going to discover anything new, you know there are numerous other Rolling Stones compilations that are bigger and better, and whether or not you want to buy it depends on how heavily you are into collecting Rolling Stones merchandise.
"Rocks Off" basically takes what are arguably 50 of the best-known Rolling Stones songs and devotes a chapter to each of the songs, with the story of how each song was written and recorded, what were any inspirations, and how the song was received by the public and critics.
The songs are listed in chronological order of release, and divided into "The Brian Jones Years," "The Mick Taylor Years" and "The Ronnie Wood Years" to distinguish how each guitarist represented a different musical era for the Stones.
The first song listed is "Tell Me." The last song is "Plundered My Soul," from the 2010 reissue of "Exile on Main Street."
The "Rocks Off" book was published in July 2013, so the book would have been better if it included either "Doom and Gloom" or "One More Shot," the two new studio tracks that were on the 2012 Rolling Stones greatest-hits compilation "GRRR!" ("Doom and Gloom" would be the more likely choice, since it was released as the compilation's first single.)
However, almost all of the Rolling Stones' biggest hits are included. There are some interesting choices (or omissions, depending on your perspective) for the Stones albums released in the 1980s and beyond: The book includes "All About You" from 1980's "Emotional Rescue" album but not the better-known title track. "She Was Hot" from 1983's "Undercover" album is included, but not the album's "Undercover of the Night," which many fans would argue is the better song. "Slipping Away" from 1989's "Steel Wheels" is included, not the better-known songs "Mixed Emotions" or "Rock and a Hard Place."
"Out of Tears" from 1994's "Voodoo Lounge" is included, but not "You Got Me Rocking" or "Love Is Strong." "Saint of Me" from 1997's "Bridges to Babylon" is included, but not "Anybody Seen My Baby," which was the album's lead single. "Biggest Mistake" from 2005's "A Bigger Bang" is included, but not "Streets of Love" or "Rough Justice." Of course, saying which song is "better" than another is highly subjective and debatable.
Here are the 50 songs that are included in the book:
- Tell Me
- It's All Over Now
- Time Is on My Side
- Heart of Stone
- The last Time
- Play With Fire
- (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
- The Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man
- I'm Free
- As Tears Go By
- Under My Thumb
- Paint It Black
- I Am Waiting
- Let's Spend the Night Together
- Ruby Tuesday
- 2000 Light Years From Home
- Jumpin' Jack Flash
- Street Fighting Man
- Sympathy for the Devil
- Stray Cat Blues
- You Can't Always Get What You Want
- Honky Tonk Women
- Gimme Shelter
- Midnight Rambler
- Sway
- Brown Sugar
- Wild Horses
- Moonlight Mile
- Rocks Off
- Tumbling Dice
- Let It Loose
- Happy
- Coming Down Again
- Angie
- It's Only Rock'n'Roll (But I Like It)
- Time Waits for No One
- Memory Motel
- Fool to Cry
- Respectable
- Miss You
- All About You
- Start Me Up
- Waiting on a Friend
- She Was Hot
- One Hit (To the Body)
- Slipping Away
- Out of Tears
- Saint of Me
- Biggest Mistake
- Plundered My Soul
Keith Richards' 2010 memoir "Life" just may be the best book on how Rolling Stones songs were written and recorded. Ever since "Life" was published, many books about the Rolling Stones songs are basically using Richards' memoir as a main source of information.
A good example is how Richards set the record straight about the story behind "Angie." He said the song was not about Angela Bowie, his daughter Angela, Angela's mother Anita Pallenberg or a mysterious woman named Angie. He just thought of the name Angie, on a whim, for the song's title. And so now every Rolling Stones book (such as "Rocks Off") that talks about the "Angie" will be quoting from Richards' memoir about how he wrote the song while detoxing from heroin and how it wasn't about a specific female. Before Richards' memoir came out, books about Rolling Stones songs could only speculate about what inspired the song.
The bottom line is that the book "Rocks Off" is a good read, but it's not very original and not essential if you compare it to all the other books and articles that have already been written about Rolling Stones songs. If you have plenty of Rolling Stones compilations and you still want more, or if you're new to discovering the Rolling Stones, then "Rocks Off" is your kind of book.
Jo Wood's 'It's Only Rock'N'Roll' is a cautionary tale of excess and adultery...
Jo Wood's 'It's Only Rock'N'Roll' is a cautionary tale of excess and adultery
There's an old saying about love, sex and relationships: "How you get
them is how you lose them." In other words, if you get a romantic
partner because that person cheated on someone else, then chances are
that partner will cheat on you too. It seems as if Jo Wood (the second ex-wife of Rolling Stones guitarist Ronnie Wood) couldn't grasp that concept until it was too late.
In her memoir "It's Only Rock'N'Roll: Thirty Years Married to a Rolling Stone," Jo admits to behavior that won't win her any Mother of the Year awards, but at least she takes responsibility in making those bad decisions instead of trying to shift the blame on others. In other areas of telling her life story, she seems to be deep in denial about how a relationship built on adultery and damaged by addiction doesn't have much of a chance of surviving.
Many Rolling Stones fans already know the story about Ronnie and Jo's relationship: They started their affair in 1977, while he was still married his first wife, Krissy, whom he eventually divorced. Jo became pregnant with daughter Leah a few months after dating Ronnie. Leah was born in 1978. Ronnie and Jo lived together and had another child (a son named Tyrone) in 1983 before getting married in 1985.
In 2008, Ronnie left Jo for Ekaterina "Katia" Ivanova, who was an 18-year-old cocktail waitress at the time. Jo filed for divorce in 2009, and a divorce settlement was reached in 2011. Ronnie and Ivanova broke up in 2009. He dated several women young enough to be his daughter before marrying his third wife, Sally Humphreys (a theater producer), in 2012.
What most people don't know about are Jo's family background (including having a biracial mother from South Africa) and the details of her first marriage to clothing manufacturer Peter Greene, the father of Jo's first child: a son named Jamie, who was born in 1974. Her maiden name is Karslake, but shortly after she became a model, she created the stage surname Howard when she had an unpleasant experience with a stalker who tracked her down at her home because he knew her real last name.
Jo describes her family (including two younger brothers and a younger sister) as middle-class, fairly stable and loving, except she sometimes feared her father, whom she describes as a strict and domineering man. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to figure out why Jo rushed into her first doomed marriage with a much older man (Greene) when she was only 18. The marriage eventually ended in divorce when she was 21.
By then, Jo had begun a career in modeling (Twiggy was her idol), and in her book she describes how she began to feel resentment and boredom toward Greene, so she cheated on him, usually with men she met in the fashion industry.
It was during the beginning of the "party girl" phase in Jo's life that she met Ronnie, whom Jo says pursued her vigorously until she gave in to his charms. At the beginning of the relationship, Jo was battling Greene over custody issues about Jamie (she eventually won full custody of Jamie), while Ronnie was married to his first wife, Krissy, with whom he had a son named Jesse. According to Jo, Krissy essentially told Jo that she was welcome to have Ronnie because Krissy confessed to being in love with Jimmy Page.
Ronnie's self-titled 2007 memoir already detailed many of the drug excesses (especially with cocaine) that he and Jo had during their relationship. Jo confirms many of these tales of debauchery, and she claims that she was one of the few people who could keep up with Ronnie and his hard-partying ways.
If Ronnie and Jo's relationship could be described as "sex, drugs and rock'n'roll," especially during their "honeymoon phase," you won't find much description in Jo's memoir of the "rock'n'roll" side of the Rolling Stones in the book. Although Jo mentions that she spent a lot of time in the studio with the Stones during the making of the 1978 album "Some Girls," she barely describes the recording process. She was probably so wasted that she can't remember all the details.
And although she describes the thrills she got from watching the Stones on stage from privileged vantage points (Jo says the best Rolling Stones concert she ever saw was in Buenos Aires in 1995), her perspective of a Rolling Stones tour was as a girlfriend/wife and mother who was often partying with Ronnie while trying to keep groupies away.
Not surprisingly, since Keith Richards is the Rolling Stones member who is closest to Ronnie, Richards gets the most vivid and warmest descriptions in Jo's book, compared to the other members of the band besides Ronnie. Jo gives readers brief glimpses of what it was like to party and vacation with Richards during the years that she was in the Stones' inner circle. Jo also says that while she and Ronnie were outgoing while on tour, Richards preferred to stay in his hotel room. She also said that even when they were in remote places while on vacation, extrovert Ronnie would always be very pleased if he was recognized by a fan.
Jo describes Mick Jagger as someone who tried to seduce her shortly after they met, even though she was "Ronnie's girl." When she rejected his advances, Jagger basically acted like he didn't have much use for her. Jo says that in all the years that she was with Ronnie, she never wanted to be with anyone else.
As for Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts, Jo describes him as a gentleman but emotionally distant from her. She doesn't have much to say about Bill Wyman (who was the Rolling Stones' bass player from 1962 to 1992) except to mention that even though he was a chronic womanizer, he never tried to make any moves on her and always treated her well.
Jerry Hall (the mother of four of Jagger's children) and Patti Hansen (Richards' wife and the mother of two of his children) are described with fondness in Jo's memoir. Jo says that after her divorce from Ronnie, she and Jerry strengthened their friendship, which isn't too surprising, since they both went through similar things regarding infidelity with their Rolling Stones men.
Many of the other Rolling Stones' wives and girlfriends had lives and careers outside of the Rolling Stones, so a recurring theme in Jo's memoir is her regret over sacrificing so many of her own interests and career ambitions to take care of Ronnie and their family. She says that for several years, she was Ronnie's personal assistant until Jagger decided she could officially have that job as a paid member of the Stones organization.
When Jo became "obsessed" (her word) with organic foods and organic products, she started the company Jo Wood Organics, which was the one of the few things that she had in establishing an identity outside of her marriage to Ronnie. Sadly for Jo, the company went out of business after her divorce from Ronnie. One of the best parts of the book is her description of how she built the business and how it boosted her self-esteem.
Because Jo and Ronnie's relationship began because of his cheating on his first wife, it's not surprising that Jo admits that she was often insecure about all the groupies and other women who showed an interest in hooking up with Ronnie. Jo says she usually chose to believe Ronnie when he told her that women who were obviously his mistresses (including actress Kelly LeBrock) were just his "drinking buddies." Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that Ronnie was cheating on her on a regular basis, Jo stayed with him because she said she genuinely loved him.
Another problem in the Woods' marriage was addiction to alcohol and drugs. The part of the book that is the hardest to believe is Jo's claim that she was able to be an excellent mother while essentially admitting that she spent at least 18 months being addicted to freebasing cocaine in the early 1980s. (Richards, who has had notorious drug addictions of his own, thought freebasing cocaine was disgusting, and he thought Ronnie was out of control with this addiction. Ronnie said that in his memoir, and Jo confirmed it in her book.)
The way she describes her addiction in the book, she and Ronnie would basically shut themselves in rooms and ignored everything else except getting high, which she admits was her biggest priority at the time. Of course, it's easy to delude yourself into thinking you're a great mother while having this type of addiction if you can afford to have nannies and/or assistants to help raise your kids while those kids are being neglected by parents who are freebasing cocaine.
In 1989, Jo was misdiagnosed with Crohn's disease, but later found out that she really had a perforated appendix. To correct the problem, she had a surgery and drastically changed her diet to organic food only. Jo also said that her health scare was a wake-up call to clean up her drug-fueled lifestyle, which she believes was a big reason for why she had health problems.
So then why did Jo give her cocaine to her son Tyrone or marijuana to her daughter Leah when they were underage teenagers, even though they didn't ask for it? (She says that her kids were appalled that she offered them drugs.) Because Jo said she felt it was better that they got the drugs from her rather than someone on the street. She admits in the book that her behavior was irresponsible.
However, it doesn't excuse how shameful it is that she would give illegal drugs to her underage kids, knowing that they could possibly become addicted, and especially seeing first-hand how addiction was negatively affecting their family. Jo says that her son Jamie became a heroin addict. So it's mind-boggling why she would deliberately do things that would put her other kids at risk of becoming addicted to drugs too.
If Jo doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the drawer, that's because she isn't. One small example: Even though she brags in her memoir about all the fabulous places in the world that she traveled to as part of the Rolling Stones' inner circle, she said that after she was invited to a trip for charity to Bangladesh after her split from Ronnie, she said she didn't even know where Bangladesh was.
When it comes to describing the fun and glamorous side of being married to a Rolling Stone, Jo definitely delivers in her memoir. There's no doubt that she had a lot of fun with Ronnie during their best years. But she also doesn't shy away from describing the bad times either: Ronnie's dark moods and emotional cruelty, which she blames largely on his addictions to drugs and alcohol; financial disasters due to overspending and bad investments; and betrayals from shady business managers and other former associates.
Jo also goes into detail about the ordeal she went through after she and Ronnie were arrested in 1980 for drug smuggling in St. Maarten's, after some drug dealers they had partied with were caught with cocaine in the Woods' rented car. Ronnie and Jo spent almost a week in jail before being cleared of the charges. Jo admits that they lied to authorities about their drug use in order to get out of jail and be cleared of the charges.
Jo also describes what it was like when she found out about the affair that led to the end of her marriage to Ronnie, how Ronnie left her, and her recovery from the destruction of her marriage. But if you think Ronnie leaving her was something that happened out of the blue, think again. Years after she had her appendix health crisis, Jo says that Ronnie admitted to her that he thought about leaving her at the time she was gravely ill.
Not surprisingly, when Jo decided to lead a healthier lifestyle and Ronnie continued to indulge in his addictions to drugs and alcohol, it was a rift between them that continued to grow until the marriage reached its breaking point. When Jo and Ronnie's daughter Leah got married in 2008, she said she knew her marriage to Ronnie was ending, but she put on a happy face so as not to ruin the wedding.
Jo is a classic case of a co-dependent. And although Ronnie is fully responsible for his own actions, being married to someone who enabled his self-destructive behavior for so long certainly did not help their marriage. Jo says she stuck by Ronnie through his many trips to rehab and relapses, so one level, she could be commended for her loyalty. However, maybe it's not a coincidence that Ronnie says he's been clean and sober since 2010, after his marriage to Jo ended.
Jo Wood is not the first person to tell behind-the-scenes tales of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll when it comes to the Rolling Stones. Therefore, what she has to say about sex, drugs and rock'n'roll isn't shocking.
What may be the most shocking thing of all in Jo's memoir is her claim that Ronnie never made an apology to her or expressed remorse to her for the emotional pain and humiliation that he caused when he left her for another woman. Jo's description of Ronnie as cold and uncaring goes against the warm and bubbly personality that's been a major part of his image. It also contradicts what Ronnie has said in interviews about how he made amends with Jo and his kids for his actions that destroyed his marriage to Jo.
Ronnie is a veteran of rehab, where patients often have to apologize to people whom they've hurt. These apologies are a crucial part of "graduating" from rehab, but according to Jo, Ronnie never bothered to make these apologies to her. This may be a case of "he said/she said."
If you could sum up how Jo describes her many years with Ronnie, she essentially says that he is a rock star who can be the life of the party but he often acts like a selfish child. Considering how Jo and Ronnie got together in the first place, she should have known that their relationship, which started in chaos and infidelity, would most likely to end in chaos and infidelity.
In her memoir "It's Only Rock'N'Roll: Thirty Years Married to a Rolling Stone," Jo admits to behavior that won't win her any Mother of the Year awards, but at least she takes responsibility in making those bad decisions instead of trying to shift the blame on others. In other areas of telling her life story, she seems to be deep in denial about how a relationship built on adultery and damaged by addiction doesn't have much of a chance of surviving.
Many Rolling Stones fans already know the story about Ronnie and Jo's relationship: They started their affair in 1977, while he was still married his first wife, Krissy, whom he eventually divorced. Jo became pregnant with daughter Leah a few months after dating Ronnie. Leah was born in 1978. Ronnie and Jo lived together and had another child (a son named Tyrone) in 1983 before getting married in 1985.
In 2008, Ronnie left Jo for Ekaterina "Katia" Ivanova, who was an 18-year-old cocktail waitress at the time. Jo filed for divorce in 2009, and a divorce settlement was reached in 2011. Ronnie and Ivanova broke up in 2009. He dated several women young enough to be his daughter before marrying his third wife, Sally Humphreys (a theater producer), in 2012.
What most people don't know about are Jo's family background (including having a biracial mother from South Africa) and the details of her first marriage to clothing manufacturer Peter Greene, the father of Jo's first child: a son named Jamie, who was born in 1974. Her maiden name is Karslake, but shortly after she became a model, she created the stage surname Howard when she had an unpleasant experience with a stalker who tracked her down at her home because he knew her real last name.
Jo describes her family (including two younger brothers and a younger sister) as middle-class, fairly stable and loving, except she sometimes feared her father, whom she describes as a strict and domineering man. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to figure out why Jo rushed into her first doomed marriage with a much older man (Greene) when she was only 18. The marriage eventually ended in divorce when she was 21.
By then, Jo had begun a career in modeling (Twiggy was her idol), and in her book she describes how she began to feel resentment and boredom toward Greene, so she cheated on him, usually with men she met in the fashion industry.
It was during the beginning of the "party girl" phase in Jo's life that she met Ronnie, whom Jo says pursued her vigorously until she gave in to his charms. At the beginning of the relationship, Jo was battling Greene over custody issues about Jamie (she eventually won full custody of Jamie), while Ronnie was married to his first wife, Krissy, with whom he had a son named Jesse. According to Jo, Krissy essentially told Jo that she was welcome to have Ronnie because Krissy confessed to being in love with Jimmy Page.
Ronnie's self-titled 2007 memoir already detailed many of the drug excesses (especially with cocaine) that he and Jo had during their relationship. Jo confirms many of these tales of debauchery, and she claims that she was one of the few people who could keep up with Ronnie and his hard-partying ways.
If Ronnie and Jo's relationship could be described as "sex, drugs and rock'n'roll," especially during their "honeymoon phase," you won't find much description in Jo's memoir of the "rock'n'roll" side of the Rolling Stones in the book. Although Jo mentions that she spent a lot of time in the studio with the Stones during the making of the 1978 album "Some Girls," she barely describes the recording process. She was probably so wasted that she can't remember all the details.
And although she describes the thrills she got from watching the Stones on stage from privileged vantage points (Jo says the best Rolling Stones concert she ever saw was in Buenos Aires in 1995), her perspective of a Rolling Stones tour was as a girlfriend/wife and mother who was often partying with Ronnie while trying to keep groupies away.
Not surprisingly, since Keith Richards is the Rolling Stones member who is closest to Ronnie, Richards gets the most vivid and warmest descriptions in Jo's book, compared to the other members of the band besides Ronnie. Jo gives readers brief glimpses of what it was like to party and vacation with Richards during the years that she was in the Stones' inner circle. Jo also says that while she and Ronnie were outgoing while on tour, Richards preferred to stay in his hotel room. She also said that even when they were in remote places while on vacation, extrovert Ronnie would always be very pleased if he was recognized by a fan.
Jo describes Mick Jagger as someone who tried to seduce her shortly after they met, even though she was "Ronnie's girl." When she rejected his advances, Jagger basically acted like he didn't have much use for her. Jo says that in all the years that she was with Ronnie, she never wanted to be with anyone else.
As for Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts, Jo describes him as a gentleman but emotionally distant from her. She doesn't have much to say about Bill Wyman (who was the Rolling Stones' bass player from 1962 to 1992) except to mention that even though he was a chronic womanizer, he never tried to make any moves on her and always treated her well.
Jerry Hall (the mother of four of Jagger's children) and Patti Hansen (Richards' wife and the mother of two of his children) are described with fondness in Jo's memoir. Jo says that after her divorce from Ronnie, she and Jerry strengthened their friendship, which isn't too surprising, since they both went through similar things regarding infidelity with their Rolling Stones men.
Many of the other Rolling Stones' wives and girlfriends had lives and careers outside of the Rolling Stones, so a recurring theme in Jo's memoir is her regret over sacrificing so many of her own interests and career ambitions to take care of Ronnie and their family. She says that for several years, she was Ronnie's personal assistant until Jagger decided she could officially have that job as a paid member of the Stones organization.
When Jo became "obsessed" (her word) with organic foods and organic products, she started the company Jo Wood Organics, which was the one of the few things that she had in establishing an identity outside of her marriage to Ronnie. Sadly for Jo, the company went out of business after her divorce from Ronnie. One of the best parts of the book is her description of how she built the business and how it boosted her self-esteem.
Because Jo and Ronnie's relationship began because of his cheating on his first wife, it's not surprising that Jo admits that she was often insecure about all the groupies and other women who showed an interest in hooking up with Ronnie. Jo says she usually chose to believe Ronnie when he told her that women who were obviously his mistresses (including actress Kelly LeBrock) were just his "drinking buddies." Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that Ronnie was cheating on her on a regular basis, Jo stayed with him because she said she genuinely loved him.
Another problem in the Woods' marriage was addiction to alcohol and drugs. The part of the book that is the hardest to believe is Jo's claim that she was able to be an excellent mother while essentially admitting that she spent at least 18 months being addicted to freebasing cocaine in the early 1980s. (Richards, who has had notorious drug addictions of his own, thought freebasing cocaine was disgusting, and he thought Ronnie was out of control with this addiction. Ronnie said that in his memoir, and Jo confirmed it in her book.)
The way she describes her addiction in the book, she and Ronnie would basically shut themselves in rooms and ignored everything else except getting high, which she admits was her biggest priority at the time. Of course, it's easy to delude yourself into thinking you're a great mother while having this type of addiction if you can afford to have nannies and/or assistants to help raise your kids while those kids are being neglected by parents who are freebasing cocaine.
In 1989, Jo was misdiagnosed with Crohn's disease, but later found out that she really had a perforated appendix. To correct the problem, she had a surgery and drastically changed her diet to organic food only. Jo also said that her health scare was a wake-up call to clean up her drug-fueled lifestyle, which she believes was a big reason for why she had health problems.
So then why did Jo give her cocaine to her son Tyrone or marijuana to her daughter Leah when they were underage teenagers, even though they didn't ask for it? (She says that her kids were appalled that she offered them drugs.) Because Jo said she felt it was better that they got the drugs from her rather than someone on the street. She admits in the book that her behavior was irresponsible.
However, it doesn't excuse how shameful it is that she would give illegal drugs to her underage kids, knowing that they could possibly become addicted, and especially seeing first-hand how addiction was negatively affecting their family. Jo says that her son Jamie became a heroin addict. So it's mind-boggling why she would deliberately do things that would put her other kids at risk of becoming addicted to drugs too.
If Jo doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the drawer, that's because she isn't. One small example: Even though she brags in her memoir about all the fabulous places in the world that she traveled to as part of the Rolling Stones' inner circle, she said that after she was invited to a trip for charity to Bangladesh after her split from Ronnie, she said she didn't even know where Bangladesh was.
When it comes to describing the fun and glamorous side of being married to a Rolling Stone, Jo definitely delivers in her memoir. There's no doubt that she had a lot of fun with Ronnie during their best years. But she also doesn't shy away from describing the bad times either: Ronnie's dark moods and emotional cruelty, which she blames largely on his addictions to drugs and alcohol; financial disasters due to overspending and bad investments; and betrayals from shady business managers and other former associates.
Jo also goes into detail about the ordeal she went through after she and Ronnie were arrested in 1980 for drug smuggling in St. Maarten's, after some drug dealers they had partied with were caught with cocaine in the Woods' rented car. Ronnie and Jo spent almost a week in jail before being cleared of the charges. Jo admits that they lied to authorities about their drug use in order to get out of jail and be cleared of the charges.
Jo also describes what it was like when she found out about the affair that led to the end of her marriage to Ronnie, how Ronnie left her, and her recovery from the destruction of her marriage. But if you think Ronnie leaving her was something that happened out of the blue, think again. Years after she had her appendix health crisis, Jo says that Ronnie admitted to her that he thought about leaving her at the time she was gravely ill.
Not surprisingly, when Jo decided to lead a healthier lifestyle and Ronnie continued to indulge in his addictions to drugs and alcohol, it was a rift between them that continued to grow until the marriage reached its breaking point. When Jo and Ronnie's daughter Leah got married in 2008, she said she knew her marriage to Ronnie was ending, but she put on a happy face so as not to ruin the wedding.
Jo is a classic case of a co-dependent. And although Ronnie is fully responsible for his own actions, being married to someone who enabled his self-destructive behavior for so long certainly did not help their marriage. Jo says she stuck by Ronnie through his many trips to rehab and relapses, so one level, she could be commended for her loyalty. However, maybe it's not a coincidence that Ronnie says he's been clean and sober since 2010, after his marriage to Jo ended.
Jo Wood is not the first person to tell behind-the-scenes tales of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll when it comes to the Rolling Stones. Therefore, what she has to say about sex, drugs and rock'n'roll isn't shocking.
What may be the most shocking thing of all in Jo's memoir is her claim that Ronnie never made an apology to her or expressed remorse to her for the emotional pain and humiliation that he caused when he left her for another woman. Jo's description of Ronnie as cold and uncaring goes against the warm and bubbly personality that's been a major part of his image. It also contradicts what Ronnie has said in interviews about how he made amends with Jo and his kids for his actions that destroyed his marriage to Jo.
Ronnie is a veteran of rehab, where patients often have to apologize to people whom they've hurt. These apologies are a crucial part of "graduating" from rehab, but according to Jo, Ronnie never bothered to make these apologies to her. This may be a case of "he said/she said."
If you could sum up how Jo describes her many years with Ronnie, she essentially says that he is a rock star who can be the life of the party but he often acts like a selfish child. Considering how Jo and Ronnie got together in the first place, she should have known that their relationship, which started in chaos and infidelity, would most likely to end in chaos and infidelity.
Prince Rupert Loewenstein's book 'A Prince Among Stones' is a name-dropping bore...
Prince Rupert Loewenstein's book 'A Prince Among Stones' is a name-dropping bore
This article is part of a series of reviews of Rolling Stones books that were published in 2013.
Mick Jagger has often been described as the business mastermind of the Rolling Stones, but Prince Rupert Loewenstein (who was the Stones' chief financial adviser from 1968 to 2007) has often been credited with helping save the Stones from financial ruin. The Stones signed some bad business deals in the 1960s, and Loewenstein was part of the team that helped the Rolling Stones climb out of the proverbial quicksand and build a thriving financial foundation that serves the band well today.
So now that Loewenstein has written his memoir (just like dozens of former associates of the Stones have also told their tales in their own books), you would think that it would be a fascinating, behind-the-scenes look at how the Stones built one of the biggest financial empires in rock and roll, largely because of touring and merchandise. But in Loewnstein's memoir "A Prince Among Stones: That Business with the Rolling Stones and Other Adventures," he seems more concerned about perpetuating snobbery among the classes (as if people with royal titles are automatically "better" than those who do not have titles) and pretentious name dropping rather than give an engaging account of what it was like to be part of the Rolling Stones' inner circle for all those decades.
Jagger has already publicly slammed this book, perhaps because Loewenstein describes Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards in more flattering terms than he describes Jagger. That obvious preference for Richards is not the biggest flaw of the book. The biggest flaw of the book is that Loewenstein likes to brag about what an interesting life he has led, but the way he tells his life story is far from interesting. It's downright boring.
Many Rolling Stones fans and people in the music business already know that Loewenstein was instrumental in cleaning up the Stones' messy financial quagmire. But if this book really wanted to deliver what its title teases, Loewenstein would have cleared up any rumors or given insight into what each of the band members' relationship with money is really like.
Any Rolling Stones fan who might want to go through the endurance test of reading this book should be warned that you have to weed through one dull tale after another before getting to anything remotely resembling a story about the Rolling Stones that is told with heart. It's like an over-rated meal that has very little substance and just isn't cooked very well, no matter how much someone drones on and on about the chef's great lineage, the history of the china on which the meal is served, the credentials of the architect who designed the restaurant, and all of the famous people who ate at the restaurant.
You don't need Loewenstein's book to tell you that Richards is extremely passionate about music and witty. You don't need Loewenstein's book to know that Jagger is extremely ambitious and intelligent. And you certainly don't need Loewenstein's book if you're looking for engaging stories about "adventures" (a misleading word from the book's title) with the Rolling Stones.
Mick Jagger has often been described as the business mastermind of the Rolling Stones, but Prince Rupert Loewenstein (who was the Stones' chief financial adviser from 1968 to 2007) has often been credited with helping save the Stones from financial ruin. The Stones signed some bad business deals in the 1960s, and Loewenstein was part of the team that helped the Rolling Stones climb out of the proverbial quicksand and build a thriving financial foundation that serves the band well today.
So now that Loewenstein has written his memoir (just like dozens of former associates of the Stones have also told their tales in their own books), you would think that it would be a fascinating, behind-the-scenes look at how the Stones built one of the biggest financial empires in rock and roll, largely because of touring and merchandise. But in Loewnstein's memoir "A Prince Among Stones: That Business with the Rolling Stones and Other Adventures," he seems more concerned about perpetuating snobbery among the classes (as if people with royal titles are automatically "better" than those who do not have titles) and pretentious name dropping rather than give an engaging account of what it was like to be part of the Rolling Stones' inner circle for all those decades.
Jagger has already publicly slammed this book, perhaps because Loewenstein describes Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards in more flattering terms than he describes Jagger. That obvious preference for Richards is not the biggest flaw of the book. The biggest flaw of the book is that Loewenstein likes to brag about what an interesting life he has led, but the way he tells his life story is far from interesting. It's downright boring.
Many Rolling Stones fans and people in the music business already know that Loewenstein was instrumental in cleaning up the Stones' messy financial quagmire. But if this book really wanted to deliver what its title teases, Loewenstein would have cleared up any rumors or given insight into what each of the band members' relationship with money is really like.
Any Rolling Stones fan who might want to go through the endurance test of reading this book should be warned that you have to weed through one dull tale after another before getting to anything remotely resembling a story about the Rolling Stones that is told with heart. It's like an over-rated meal that has very little substance and just isn't cooked very well, no matter how much someone drones on and on about the chef's great lineage, the history of the china on which the meal is served, the credentials of the architect who designed the restaurant, and all of the famous people who ate at the restaurant.
You don't need Loewenstein's book to tell you that Richards is extremely passionate about music and witty. You don't need Loewenstein's book to know that Jagger is extremely ambitious and intelligent. And you certainly don't need Loewenstein's book if you're looking for engaging stories about "adventures" (a misleading word from the book's title) with the Rolling Stones.
'50 Licks' takes a familiar snapshot view of important Rolling Stone milestones...
'50 Licks' takes a familiar snapshot view of important Rolling Stone milestones
This review is part of a series of reviews of Rolling Stones books that have a 50th anniversary theme.
This article is part of a series of reviews of Rolling Stones books that were published in 2013.
"50 Licks: Myths & Stories From a Half a Century of the Rolling Stones" by Pete Fornatale is a compilation of quotes from various sources about important milestones in the Rolling Stones' history. What makes this book slightly different from the rest is that Fornatale includes quotes from unpublished or rare Rolling Stones interviews from his radio archives and interviews that Fornatale said were specifically done for the book. Andrew Loog Oldham, Andy Johns, Marianne Faithfull, Darryl Jones and Michael Lindsay-Hogg were among those quoted in exclusive interviews.
Written in an "oral history" format, there isn't much in "50 Licks" that hasn't already been revealed or covered in numerous other books and articles about the Rolling Stones. "50 Licks" can be considered well-done when it comes to putting major events in the Rolling Stones' history in chronological order.
However, a copy editor would find this book maddening in how it usually doesn't say where the original quote came from, leading people to wonder which quotes are from previously published work and which are previously unpublished interviews. There are some exceptions where the source of the interview is mentioned before the quote is listed, but those exceptions are few and far in between.
And there's also the matter of not knowing when most of these interviews were done. Jagger's perspective of a Rolling Stones song like "Sister Morphine" could be different, depending on what decade he talked about the song in an interview. The same goes for Faithfull, who is the inspiration for "Sister Morphine," which she says she co-wrote. Faithfull is quoted in the book as saying, "I don't talk about the Stones anymore," so it would be helpful to know when she made that remark, because it's certainly not true that she doesn't talk about the Stones anymore, based on her recent interviews. Unless you're new to collecting Rolling Stones books, these kinds of things do matter if you think you might want to buy "50 Licks."
There are source notes at the end of the book, but these notes don't really make it clear how much of the book is just recycled quotes and how much is exclusive to the book. And that's probably why so much of "50 Licks" looks and sounds familiar, because even the "exclusive" interviews (the one you think you may not have seen published before) have similar things that these interview subjects have said in other interviews.
Since this book has an "oral history" format, there may be some people quoted whose names will not familiar to some readers. Luckily, there is an alphabetized list at the end of "50 Licks" that has a short description of everyone quoted in the book.
"50 Licks" is recommended if someone needs a a crash course on Rolling Stones history in an easy-to-read format. However, if you've read at least 10 other books about the Rolling Stones, then chances are you won't learn anything new from "50 Licks."
This article is part of a series of reviews of Rolling Stones books that were published in 2013.
"50 Licks: Myths & Stories From a Half a Century of the Rolling Stones" by Pete Fornatale is a compilation of quotes from various sources about important milestones in the Rolling Stones' history. What makes this book slightly different from the rest is that Fornatale includes quotes from unpublished or rare Rolling Stones interviews from his radio archives and interviews that Fornatale said were specifically done for the book. Andrew Loog Oldham, Andy Johns, Marianne Faithfull, Darryl Jones and Michael Lindsay-Hogg were among those quoted in exclusive interviews.
Written in an "oral history" format, there isn't much in "50 Licks" that hasn't already been revealed or covered in numerous other books and articles about the Rolling Stones. "50 Licks" can be considered well-done when it comes to putting major events in the Rolling Stones' history in chronological order.
However, a copy editor would find this book maddening in how it usually doesn't say where the original quote came from, leading people to wonder which quotes are from previously published work and which are previously unpublished interviews. There are some exceptions where the source of the interview is mentioned before the quote is listed, but those exceptions are few and far in between.
And there's also the matter of not knowing when most of these interviews were done. Jagger's perspective of a Rolling Stones song like "Sister Morphine" could be different, depending on what decade he talked about the song in an interview. The same goes for Faithfull, who is the inspiration for "Sister Morphine," which she says she co-wrote. Faithfull is quoted in the book as saying, "I don't talk about the Stones anymore," so it would be helpful to know when she made that remark, because it's certainly not true that she doesn't talk about the Stones anymore, based on her recent interviews. Unless you're new to collecting Rolling Stones books, these kinds of things do matter if you think you might want to buy "50 Licks."
There are source notes at the end of the book, but these notes don't really make it clear how much of the book is just recycled quotes and how much is exclusive to the book. And that's probably why so much of "50 Licks" looks and sounds familiar, because even the "exclusive" interviews (the one you think you may not have seen published before) have similar things that these interview subjects have said in other interviews.
Since this book has an "oral history" format, there may be some people quoted whose names will not familiar to some readers. Luckily, there is an alphabetized list at the end of "50 Licks" that has a short description of everyone quoted in the book.
"50 Licks" is recommended if someone needs a a crash course on Rolling Stones history in an easy-to-read format. However, if you've read at least 10 other books about the Rolling Stones, then chances are you won't learn anything new from "50 Licks."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)