Said Mick Jagger, in an interview at "Mick Jagger Knows He May Have Played His Last Rolling Stones Show" (NYT).
ADDED: I like this part about philosophy:
The interviewer, David Marchese, enthuses, "I think it’s cool that you’re reading Kant." And Mick responds coolly: "Well, it’s all vaguely fashionable.""They’re always having so many arguments, these philosophers, and always disagreeing with their masters. I was reading this book on Kant. They’re quite rude to each other and then they have to make up later, and I can’t understand what they’re really talking about. Was Kant a Christian? Was he an atheist?"
Posts
52 comments:
…I tuned out when ‘Romney’ became a lyric..nice knowing you, Mick…
"So you find yourself using these tricks."
If your politics aren't crap, you don't have to trick people into listening to them. How about doing it after the concert- you know, that thing people paid you to perform?
Whatever happened to entertainers just entertaining?
Two kind of song lyrics I never liked are ones that spell words out, and political songs. One is lame and the other is a buzz kill.
"YMCA" turned out to be both.
Thank God for that.
And it's gay, NTAIWWT
"All rock 'n' rollers over the age of 50 look stupid and should retire." -- Grace Slick
I like the older Mick, he seems more chill, content.
Maybe Mick has read Pierre Bayard's "How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read".
Mick Jagger is 83 years old. He was considered an "old man" when I first heard of him in the late 70s. I guess it says something about how pop culture has became frozen in amber and the death grip the boomers have on the MSM.
Im sure 80 something Nina Totenberg was listening to Mick on her way to file her fake story, and Mitch the Bitch McConnell was no doubt "rockin" to Mick Jagger when he had his massive heart attack.
"and the death grip the boomers have on the MSM."
Mick Jagger was born in 1943. Not a boomer.
And neither are Nina Totenberg and Mitch the Bitch McConnell, in case you might be wondering.
Mick is better than Springsteen. At least he just sings, and slides a few lines in. Bruce lectures for a few hours, with a few tuhalf-assed acoustic covers of his bar band dreck thrown in to appeas the masses.
I read all of Kant for pleasure. It depends on what you're interested in.
Kant you hear me knockin'?
Ahh, are you safe asleep?
Kant you hear me knockin'?
Yeah, down the gas light street, now
Kant you hear me knockin'?
Yeah, throw me down the keys
Alright now
- Jagger & Richards
Reading about Immanuel Kant is not reading Immanuel Kant, and reading Kant in English also not reading Kant. If you're not fluent in Anakolth syntax, perhaps you shouldn't even try.
I kant understand it. Whats he trying to say? I Kant make it out.
Yes we can.
No, I Kant.
Philosophers are trying to take you step by step through their reasoning to their conclusion. Most of us just want to skip to the end. That's Jagger's problem. My guess is he's an atheist and doesn't want to plow through someone who ends up supporting Christianity.
The interviewer brought up the subject of philosophy, so don’t think Mick was being pretentious.
The following question came up in the 17th century and the philosophers really cared about it. The philosophers were idealists who began with the premise that our ideas are internal to us. How, then, do we know they reach reality? And idealists were never able to answer that question in a logical way. Hence, they said, we do not know the truth, or parhaps, we can't know ehether we know the truth. And once you say that then anything anyone says may or may not be true. Truth basically becomes the prejudices or common sense of the tribe you were born into at the time you were born.
You, dear commentators, may not care whether your chosen principles are logical and coherent but philosophers do care about just that. And down the line, the philosophers worked out the consequences of the philosophical position that there is no truth. Which was that each one of us is meaningless, a mote just spinning blindly in space. This is not the position of philosophical realism which is the philosophy underlying the statements of universal truths, e.g., "All men are created equal" in Declaration of Independence
How to get out of the idealistic trap? You begin with the fact that you are a human being and as such you know all day long that you are surrounded by other beings about whom you have ideas which you know to be true. When you drive, for example, you know there are other beings (cars and people) and the people have the same ideas as you. For example, you know tha that a car which you see in your rear view mirror does cease to exist when you suddenly stop seeing it in that mirror but, rather, it is in your "blind spot. Your basic philosophical position developed from such experiences would be philosophical realism - their are being and we know truths about them. This is the position of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke and the American Founders. We do not know all truths about every being we meet and we know this too.
All I'm saying is that the trap Kant was in is a trap particular to philosophical idealism and does not exist for those who use the principles of philosophical realism. If you drive a car, you know their are beings not yourself about whom you know some truths. Great philosphical structures rest on acceptance or rejection of yourself as a human who knows truth by the one weird trick of abstracting universal ideas about beings from sensations. That red light ahead of your car is a sensation and an idea and you know it.
I can guess why Charlie Watts punched him.
Don't let old Mick fool you, he's a hardcore capitalist with probably an 80's Tory streak.
It’s only rock-n-roll. After being married to Bianca, Jagger hates politics and activists
“ Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G. G. Simpson put it thus: ‘The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.’*”
Works for me.
Sure Mick was all nice, it was Dylan who humiliated Donovan publicly.
" If you're not fluent in Anakolth syntax, perhaps you shouldn't even try."
Whew! That's a relief.
" If you're not fluent in Anakolth syntax, perhaps you shouldn't even try."
I was going to tell him that, well, he can do whatever he likes.
Those people who think they know everything, one cannot argue with them.
If you think I’m going to, well, never mind.
Softball questions and fluffy answers, but nonetheless interesting. He didn't say anything shocking or revelatory. Just a pleasant conversation with a not overly obsequious fanboy reporter. I would guess that spending a lifetime frolicking with beautiful, disturbingly young women would have a fortifying effect on an octogenarian's libido but he skirted that subject......He didn't say that he actually read Kant. He said he read a book on Kant. That might actually have happened......I think Trump is more rock n roll than Jagger. Perhaps Jagger knows and appreciates this, but you don't get the NYT to plug your new album if you come out of that closet.
I Kant get no
Satisfaction
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...
As a life-long Stones fan, I was disappointed to hear their announcement that they would not perform their big hit, Brown Sugar, after some 50 years. As Forrest Gump says, "And all of a sudden ....."
Mark - it makes perfect sense that is your opinion of him.
Nice catch, Mark.
*that they would not perform their big hit, Brown Sugar*
Tacoma Dome. 2002. They opened with that.
Forty Licks Tour
Fourth row ... not even spitting distance from Keith. Flipped his pick after "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and it landed under the seat directly in front of me.
Still have it.
John Mulaney has a funny bit about writing songs with Mick on SNL.
Kant was pretty cool, philosophy-wise. I had a law professor who loved Kant. Hard to read, though.
If you ask a politician who their favorite philosopher is, they will always say, "Jesus." At least on the Republican side. This is a lot safer than going with "Machiavelli" or "Plato" or one of the other big names.
Sixty some years in and we really don’t know Mick.
I appreciate that.
I saw this interview with him from the 1960's. He was a young man. And the interviewer was asking him when he would retire.
The Who was singing "I hope I die before I get old," and the hippies were saying "Don't trust anybody over 30." The 60's were youth-obsessed.
And Mick Jagger said, "Well, blues musicians keep playing into their 70's. So we'll probably be like that."
Nailed it. He had his own thoughts and he wasn't even paying attention to what was hip to say at the time.
Who's your favorite economist, Mick?
Hayek!
The man is totally a Republican, I swear. Or at least a Libertarian.
Influenced by Sting maybe?
Althouse: “to be a great artist is inherently right wing.”
"Hang Fire" seems like an indictment of the British welfare state.
In the sweet old country
Where I come from
Nobody ever works
Nothing ever gets done
We hang fire, we hang fire
You know marrying
Money is a full time job
I don't need the aggravation
I'm a lazy slob, I hang fire
I hang fire, hang fire, hang
Put it on the wire, baby
I hang fire, hang fire
Put it on the wire, baby
I hang fire
We got nothing to eat
We go nowhere to work
Nothing to drink
We just lost our shirt
I'm on the dole, we ain't for hire
Say, What the hell? Say, What the hell?
Hang fire, hang fire, hang fire
Put it on the wire baby
Hang fire, hang fire, hang fire
Hang fire, hang fire, hang fire
Put it on the wire baby
Hang fire, hang fire, hang fire
Hang fire, hang fire, hang fire
Put it on the wire baby
Yeah, take a thousand dollars
Go and have some fun
Put it all on at a hundred to one
Hang fire, I hang fire, hang fire
Put it on the wire baby
Hang fire, hang fire, put it on the wire baby
Hang fire, hang fire, hang fire, hang fire
Put it on the wire baby
Put it on the wire baby
Kant's Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone is good and a relatively easy read.
"Two kind of song lyrics I never liked are ones that spell words out, and political songs. One is lame and the other is a buzz kill."
All I have to say to that is , Y M C A!
A stupid fun song if there ever was one.
I have a Philosophy degree, but I never got around to reading Kant. By all accounts, he was a real pissant.
Are you a Keith or a Mick?
Mick could be described as running away from the past. If he stops he will keel over. Keith, on the other hand could be said to be moldering gently like an old wine, or cheese. Take your pick.
You have a Philosophy degree and you Kant read?
Reminds me of the small f famous Althouse meme. “And you a law professor.”
“Who's your favorite economist, Mick?
Hayek!”
When you have close to a billion dollars it’s hard to be a radical. Springsteen accomplishes it by being stupid and Neil Young accomplishes it by remembering he sang an old song about tin soldiers and Nixon.
My thoughts on the Jagger interview:
1. David Marchese reminds me of Pee-wee Herman without the gravitas.
2. The second half was a production failure. The split-screen setup put Marchese in a bright office and Jagger in a low-lit room. Your eye kept jumping between two completely different visual registers.
3. Jagger never punches down and never trades on contrasts that require diminishing someone else.
The Scandinavian/Brazilian audience example was perfect. A lazier interviewee would have gone for an easy laugh by calling Scandinavians cold or reserved. Instead, Jagger simply described the cultural difference without ranking it.
The same grace showed up when Marchese brought up the band Geese and framed them as culturally marginal. Jagger immediately pushed back: “What do you mean, culturally marginal?” He then made a point of saying he’d been asked about them in another interview, went and listened, and genuinely liked them. He also took care to explain that his Musk lyric reference was a compliment to a man who had saved the stranded astronauts. There’s something almost aristocratic about Jagger in his refusal to gain status by lowering someone else.
4. The idea that stayed with me
Stage presence isn’t primarily about projecting outward - it’s about regulating inward first. When the adrenaline hits, if you can’t manage your own nervous system, you’ll spend the whole show riding the wave instead of steering it. Only once you’re settled inside yourself can you truly perceive the crowd - read whether they want to be lifted, met, calmed, or provoked - and then choose your response.
Lousy interviewer. Great interviewee.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.