Mick Jagger on the Eagles and linda Ronstadt 1978

An interesting piece of footage from a British interview with Mick Jagger from 1978 where he starts off critical of LA bands and their music scene, I knew he meant the Eagles, and no sooner does he come right out and name them. He couldnt help it, Jagger was jealous of the new 70s acts that outsold them like Zeppelin and the Eagles. He probably hated sabbath too.

Anyway he also criticises Linda as well as part of a stagnant LA scene, stirring the pot here what are you reactions to this intriguing footage?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEYc0KKP1oY

The man is one of my heroes & was entitled to his opinions. Many people thought this way. Nowhere does he say he is jealous, just that LA is a music INDUSTRY town & it was about Ronstadt & the Eagles & nothing new. (He may not have known of Warren Zevon, perhaps). You could say he over-simplifies if you wish to be critical. I was more interested when he started talking about playing guitar on stage.

The LA music part starts about 7.00.
.

Yeah I think he definitely generalises the LA music scene there were others like Randy Newman,tom waits Jackson Browne Toto etc. Saying he's jealous is just an opinion, after all there was no need to name any act its kind of unclassy of him though its maybe the wine talking. But both Linda and the Eagles were making vastly different records as well that I wouldnt class as established!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OntheBorder74

Yeah I think he definitely generalises the LA music scene there were others like Randy Newman,tom waits Jackson Browne Toto etc. Saying he's jealous is just an opinion, after all there was no need to name any act its kind of unclassy of him though its maybe the wine talking. But both Linda and the Eagles were making vastly different records as well that I wouldnt class as established!

---

The Long Run & Mad Love, both of which were released after this interview.

Toto were the epitome of 'establishment'.

Fleetwood mac was one of the most 'edgy' groups and to me were a california band and are often attached to the california sound. There was also groups like The Doobie Brothers, Firefall and America that each had a unique sound which is enough for me and many to know LA was still a breeding ground for its own; remember its where Van Halen would emerge from that year as well which was before this interview so its all about analysing further

You have to put this in context. He was talking to an English DJ (Anne Nightingale?) at the height of British punk. When he talks about New Wave, he probably means The Sex Pistols, The Buzzcocks, The Clash etc. Fleetwood Mac were about as far from edgy as you could get. America were very soft-rock and had their peak about 5 years earlier (and they started in London, having big UK hits before they moved to LA). Van Halen were following on from the heavy rock that groups like Black Sabbath and Deep Purple played in the early 70s. I suspect Mick was just trying to allign himself with the new sounds.

I can't say I agree with him, but it's a point of view he shared with most of the British music press of the time.

Thing is Fleetwood mac's Rumours was one of the most lauded album of 77 it was definitely a critics album. Van Halen had a completely new sonic sound that may have been heavy rock but it was in a whole new level and the art of shredding by VH wasnt as established, showing up Sabbath on their 78 tour, but I see what you mean genre wise its the same territory. Its a shame because I think there were new exciting groups still coming out of LA and older ones, like the Doobie Brother's new soul sound also some strong artists in general Andrew Gold, Karla Bonoff, Sanford Townshend Band...At the end of the day I just don't think he should put down LA but ah well guess that california rock wasnt his cup of tea but it was fresh at the time

Generally, when you hear artists discussing other artists, it's more about marketing (unless that other artist is a friend or childhood hero), i.e. "this is why I'm more relevant than whoever is popular at the moment."

I don't blame Jagger a bit. There's a similar interview, I think it was also from the Old Grey Whistle Test, and the interviewer seems to only want to discuss Marc Bolan, who was very hot in Britain at the time. The Stones have seen scores of acts come and go. It amazes me that a contemporary of the long-gone Beatles is still playing and occasionally recording new music.

Also, "L.A. music" was a favorite target for many people at the time. Jagger's remarks are very typical.

The album, Hotel California isn't exactly a glowing tribute to LA either, despite it being arguably the pinnacle of the California pack's achievement. It was all downhill after that.

Around 1977/78 there were a lot of non musical people making a hellova lot of money out of the LA music business. It wasn't a healthy artistic environment. The Eagles barely lasted til the 80s, by which time most of the other acts were gone or in decline too.