Quote

The early Stones were adolescent rockers. They were self-conscious in an obvious and unpretentious way. And they were committed to a musical style that needed no justification because it came so naturally to them. As they grew musically the mere repetition of old rock and blues tunes became increasingly less satisfying.

The Rolling Stones seemed very loose and wild, but when you read about them, you realize that everything they did is very deliberate.

Were the Rolling Stones good looking? Well, Jagger was, but the rest of the dudes? Maybe not so much.

It was always my belief that rock and roll belonged in the hands of the people, not rock stars.

There comes a point where it is just undignified to be a rock 'n' roll star.

The Rolling Stones are violence. Their music penetrates the raw nerve endings of their listeners and finds its way into the groove marked 'release of frustration.'

The Rolling Stones have been the best of all possible worlds: they have the lack of pretension and sentimentality associated with the blues, the rawness and toughness of hard rock, and the depth which always makes you feel that they are in the midst of saying something. They have never impressed me as being kitsch.

I never really thought in terms of the concept of being a rock star - being around people like that just seemed like normal day-in-the-life stuff to me. Those were just the surroundings I grew up in.

The cliche of what a rock star is - there's something elitist about it. I never related to that. I'm an entertainer. I think of it as, you're performing for people. It's not a self-glorification thing.

I've seen guys on the street who look the part of a rock star just as much as any rock star. If you feel it and you believe it, then you can get away with it. Rock on!