Two to Tango

It takes two, so says Rolling Stone’s 20 Greatest Duos of All Time.  “Less narcissistic than a solo performer, more intimate than a band.”  Not sure that quite holds up, but when the chemistry works, a duo can indeed be magical.

I’m a tad confused about what holds this list together, though.  We’ve got bona fide duos, such as Richard and Linda Thompson, Simon & Garfunkel, and The Everly Brothers.

But then we’ve got duos that may be duos but they sound like bands, even though they are definitely driven by a partnership of two, e.g. Black Keys or Steely Dan.  I mean, is Ronnie Wood any less of a hired gun than Larry Carlton?

Debatable, maybe, if you apply that logic to Sam & Dave, but then the list gets weird.  Ashford & Simpson were really known for songwriting, not performing, so why not King & Goffin?  Fripp & Eno were a one-off.  Ike Tuner was big before Tina, Tina was big after Ike, and no one wants to remember the period in between.

Maybe 20 is a stretch and this should have been a Top 10 list.

ps - Lee Hazelwood and Nancy Sinatra have “stood the test of time?”  Really?

Satisfaction

I recently read Philip Norman’s biography on Mick Jagger.  It could have been called Satisfaction:  Mick Jagger and the Invention of Corporate Rock.

I mean, we all know The Rolling Stones are a major brand and a well-oiled machine.  Kinda like Apple but, with more wrinkles – and a few more urban myths.

But what I realized reading this book is that Jagger was acting more like a CEO than a rock star right from the beginning. 

If you think about the Stones over the last 20 years or so, no problem seeing him in that light.  But in the 60’s and 70’s?  Deaths, drug busts, mars bars, blood transfusions, radio bans, prime minister’s wives …  this band was a train wreck. 

But the train somehow kept rolling, and Jagger managed his way through the mayhem.

Anyway, an interesting read, with enough salaciousness to keep most people amused.  That is why we read rock biographies, right?