I have been a fan of the Rolling Stones as long as they've been around. I've had Mick singing in my ears since I was a teenager; I'm a die-hard fan, and unlike some, I have always considered him to be a very attractive man, even though I'll admit you can also see him looking not so attractive at times. His most appealing side can be elusive and the camera must get it right. Mick appeals to many different people in different ways. I prefer to see pictures of him when he looks happy and/or is having fun, or he just plain looks hot. If that's what you are looking for, don't buy this book.
I wanted to be wowed. I wanted some pictures to drool over. I mean, is this man not one of the hottest guys ever? Are you kidding me, here? The guy has been hot for decades, and none of these celebrated photographers got it on film?
This book caters to an artist point of view, and is not necessarily a book for fans to enjoy. And, by the way, artists don't usually like to see people smile, and they also don't seem to know, at least from what I see in these pictures, how to capture the seriously sexy side of him either. Furthermore, I'll go on to say, what was anybody thinking when they chose these pictures? (An example of photos that I do appreciate would be Stephen Barnard's, The Rolling Stones, Street Fighting Years. This is an oversized book that contains some really great pictures. I highly recommend it.)
The layout of the book creates an enormous waste of space. One photograph with its corresponding credit takes up two pages. Is this an attempt to give the illusion that the book contains more pictures than it actually does? Spread over a total of 120 single pages, I counted 72 photographs. Or perhaps this is some sort of an attempt to make up for the small size of the book. It measures 10 1/2 inches by 10 1/4 inches.
In this entire book, I found only one photograph that I truly love: Cecil Beaton, New York, 1969, where Mick is smiling against a backdrop of New York at night. Gorgeous. That's him. That's the Mick I want to see more of. Yes, he was young there, and I'd probably be most impressed by pictures from when he was young, but not in all cases. And, one other picture stands out to me that I really like, Brian Aris, 1992. Gorgeous. I also do like the one by Harry Goodwin, 1964, Gered Mankowitz, 1966, and three by Jean-Marie Perier, 1966. I'm sure there are better Cecil Beaton pics out there, and Gered Mankowitz as well.
I also sort of liked Terry O'Neil, Sante D'Orazio, Peter Lindberg, and a number towards the end of the book, Anton Corbijn, 1994 (Mick in the fur, not in the freakin' mask) and 2005, Mark Seliger, 1994 and 2005, two by Annie Leibovitz, 1992, and Karl Lagerfeld, 2001 (Mick with guitar). But as I say, these pictures I can do without. They're not what I would really love to see. There are other pics that are "just okay". Sure, it's the real Jagger, and even the unreal Jagger in many cases. It's a lot of photos that you wouldn't care about one way or another. Do I need to see four pics of Mick, wasting a good few pages, from the movie "Performance" when I can see that movie anytime? (Check out the aforementioned book by Stephen Barnard for a truly hot picture of Mick from that movie). Do I need to see him looking like Ned Kelly, or like an old man in a full beard? Or as his mother? (Okay, he's not playing his mother; it's from "Bent".) And the rest of the book I could throw in the trash.