Sir Mick Jagger has had quite the rock star life over his almost 60 years with The Rolling Stones. But having once started writing his autobiography, the 77-year-old gave up on a manuscript which publisher John Blake called “a little masterpiece” back in 2017. And now Sir Mick has shared how he found the writing process “simply dull and upsetting”.
Speaking with BBC 6 Music this week, Sir Mick was asked if he’d been inspired to continue with his unfinished memoirs during the lockdown.
However, The Rolling Stones singer replied: “I could’ve done that, yeah.
“It was a thing that people started doing, writing. I think in the ’80s I started it and I was offered a lot of money – the money was the seductive part of it!
“So when I actually started to get into it I really didn’t enjoy it…reliving my life, to the detriment of living in the now.”
READ MORE: Mick Jagger Dave Grohl: The story behind their Eazy Sleazy team up
Sir Mick continued: “If you wanna write an autobiography, this is not a process you can just do in a week – it takes a lot out of you.
“It takes a lot of reliving emotions, reliving friendships, reliving ups and downs.”
On the last time, he had a go at writing his memoirs, the 77-year-old admitted it “wasn’t the most enjoyable [experience] to be honest.”
He added: “It was all simply dull and upsetting, and there really weren’t that many highs out of it.”
Last year, Sir Mick responded to Sir Paul McCartney’s claim that The Beatles were greater than The Rolling Stones.
Macca had said on The Howard Stern Show: “[The Rolling Stones] are rooted in the blues. When they are writing stuff, it has to do with the blues.
We had a little more influences. There’s a lot of differences, and I love the Stones, but I’m with you. The Beatles were better.”
Hitting back in the playful banter, The Rolling Stones singer told Zane Lowe on Apple Music: “That’s so funny. He’s a sweetheart. There’s obviously no competition.”
Jagger argued: “The big difference, though, is – and sort of slightly seriously – is that The Rolling Stones is a big concert band in other decades and other areas when The Beatles never even did an arena tour…Madison Square Garden with a decent sound system.
“They broke up before that business started, the touring business for real. So that business started in 1969 and the Beatles never experienced that. They did a great gig, and I was there, at Shea Stadium.”
“They did that stadium gig. But The Stones went on, we started doing stadium gigs in the ’70s and [are] still doing them now.”
He added that that was the real big difference between the two bands, saying: “One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn’t exist.”
LISTEN TO THE BBC RADIO 6 INTERVIEW HERE