Joe Elliott doesn't like streaming services

Streaming services, amirite? They're like the work of a demon. A minor demon, perhaps, but a demon nevertheless. Tell us why, Joe:

"I signed up for the Apple one, Beats. It's kind of semi-evil, because whoever owns Spotify is worth more than 50 times than Mick Jagger, who's been in this business for 50 years. And that's just not right.

Mick Jagger, according to The Richest, is worth 360 Million Dollars. So to be worth fifty times that, you would have to be an eighteen-fold billionaire. 18 billion is roughly the GDP of Honduras.

Just to be clear: Daniel Ek is not Honduras. In fact, according to Time, he's worth 300 Million Dollars, which puts him behind Mick Jagger in terms of wealth.

Obviously, the point Joe was trying to make was that it seems absurd that a person who works in the tech industry is worth a lot of money compared with someone who works in the music industry for fifty years.

Although that doesn't make sense generally: it's not like the tech industry away from music is known for being a place where the bosses take home tiny pay packets.

It also doesn't make any sense in this specific case. First of all, it could be possible that Mick Jagger had just invested incredibly badly, or had been generous with his money.

Secondly, although Mick has been in the industry fifty years, Ek's not exactly a newcomer - he started when he was 14, so nearly twenty years, and he made a fortune selling his first advertising business. So it's not like he's built his money up entirely from not making Mick Jagger even richer.

Also: both these people have obscene amounts of money. Even if Daniel Ek was fifty times richer than Jagger, that would mean Jagger had six million dollars. You can buy a bionic man with that.

But you had a point, Joe, to make:

Because when you read stories about Lady Gaga getting 127 dollars for 60 trillion plays, or whatever, you're thinking, this is bullshit.

Well, yes, there were stories five years ago that GaGag got USD127 for a million streams - it's funny that Elliott was spot-on with the amount there, when so many of his other figures are grossly overestimated in favour of his argument, but then I think we all know people in our own jobs who do that.

But why was GaGa doing so poorly out of streaming? Not because of the semi-evil streaming services, but because of the fully evil record labels:

[In] some explosive comments made by Gaga's ex-manager Troy Carter. Carter states that Gaga's label, Universal Music, cheated the artist out of streaming royalties due to her from Spotify and other streaming services during the height of her pop popularity.

Carter, who is no longer handling Gaga's career but is active as a music and technology entrepreneur and investor, said, "We've always gotten screwed from record royalties ... So when you look at it, the live business and the merchandise business have always been the bigger piece of the pie. And with record labels, I think it's more of just chickens coming home to roost. Well, let's rephrase that: labels made a significant amount of money off of Spotify that didn't match up to the artist royalty statements ..."

How evil of Spotify to, erm, not be party to the main point where artists are getting ripped off.

Anything else, Joe? Do you perhaps have an "I can remember when it was all trees round here" argument to offer?

And when you get on Spotify, it's very insular. Which the whole industry has become. Everybody is on headphones now. It's just Zombieland, and we're all guilty of it. I do it too, but only when it's necessary, like on an airplane.

Yes. People listening to music on headphones. In the old days, people used to go to their bedrooms to be insular and listen to music. How can Spotify have ruined that by, erm, inventing headphones or something or... what?

Gordon in the morning: Glastonbury on the beach

Over in the private area behind the Sun's magnificent paywall, Gordon hears that Mick Jagger is planning his own festival.

Because nothing has a happier historical precedent than a festival that the Rolling Stones have been involved in the organisation of, right?

Gordon quotes a "source"; maybe someone who has been paid in vouchers to access the Sun website now it's not really on the internet any more:

"Mick has put out some feelers in Brazil to put on a big show. The plans are ambitious but if he pulls it off it will be huge. The whole vibe of the event is very much 'flower power' and the same hippy values that Glastonbury prides itself on. The publicity drive will begin in the next six months or so but there's no doubt there will be big names on the bill"

Yes, of course it's in Brazil, where the sun is warm on old bones and the tax arrangements agreeably outside HMRC's grasp.

I suppose it's not inconsistent that someone who thinks they spy "hippy values" in between the phone-charging points and ATMs of Worthy Farm could believe that a Rock Business Festival which flies people halfway round the world to have a party against a backdrop of protests against grand entertainments taking precedence over local problems is in someway a "flower power" event.

That vague "six months" to the publicity drive feels like the sort of time period which is just long enough to let most people forget it was ever mentioned, should it not happen. We shall see.

Dodgy tenners

Exciting news from the NME:

The Beatles, Mick Jagger and Robbie Williams are among the names being considered to appear on the new £10 banknote, it has been revealed.

Except, that's not quite true. What has happened is the Bank Of England has released a list of 150 names which have been suggested by members of the public as brilliant ideas for who should be on the ten pound note.

The NME might believe this is the BOE considering the names; I suspect the real reason the list has been released is so that people can snigger at the stupidity of suggesting gurning old Williams being in every pocket in the land.

Mick Jagger defends ticket prices

The Rolling Stones have been on something of a charm offensive the last couple of days to justify the gougy prices for tickets on the current tour.

Obviously, we know the justification for a ninety quid starting price point - it's what people will pay and the band are greedy.

That isn't what Mick Jagger says, though:

You might say, 'The tickets are too expensive' - well, it's a very expensive show to put on, just to do four shows, because normally you do a hundred shows and you'd have the same expenses.

Um... Up to a point. Yes, your fixed costs would be spread over a lot more gigs, but let's be clear that this isn't some sort of U2 multimedia bollocks where the band arrive in a spaceship made from guitars, so a large wedge of the outgoings will be marginal - venue hire, electricity, staff, and whatever it takes to stop Keith Richards turning into a pile of dust for another day.

Mick knows that, and so instead embarks on trying a spot of distraction, by pointing instead at the secondary market:

"So, yes, it's expensive," he added. "But most of the tickets go for a higher price than we've sold them for, so you can see the market is there. We don't participate in the profit. If a ticket costs 250 quid. let's imagine, and goes for 1,000 quid, I just want to point out that we don't get that difference."

True, but just because they gouge on top of the original price doesn't alter the fact that the original price was already ratcheted up.

Mick Jagger loves Boris Johnson

Given the way Mick Jagger got cross when people found out he was planning to meet David Cameron a few weeks back, he probably won't be thrilled at his fawning over the mayoral punchline, revealed in the Telegraph:

Sir Mick, whose hits include (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction, retains his affection for Boris Johnson, though. “I got an email message from Sir Mick Jagger congratulating me on winning the mayoral race,” says Johnson. “It is not impossible that I could pay him back and offer to dance with him on stage.”

Hang about, though - the Stones famously arrange their tours to avoid having to pay too much tax in the UK. Isn't that the sort of aggressive tax "avoidance" that the Tories are supposed to be decrying?

Gordon in the morning: Someone's daughter

How long do you suppose Georgia Jagger's career will have run before Gordon stops headlining pieces about her like this:

Mick Jagger’s daughter Georgia looks ore-some

Presumably the only way for her to stop being someone else's daughter is if she gets married, right, Gordon?

Jagger slaps Cameron & struts out of Davos

Ah, this morning's lavish coverage of Mick Jagger turning up at Dave and/or Boris' expensive Davos tea party must have thrilled the Number 10 press office.

The grins have probably faded somewhat, as Jagger has pulled out, fuming at being described, for example, as a Tory by Gordon Smart this morning:

The Rolling Stones frontman said: "During my career I have always eschewed party politics and came to Davos as a guest, as I thought it would be stimulating.

"I have always been interested in economics and world events.

"I now find myself being used as a political football and there has been a lot of comment about my political allegiances which are inaccurate.

"I think it's best I decline the invitation to the key event and curtail my visit."

That's pretty much a disendorsement of Cameron, then. Or possibly of Boris. Or probably both.

Gordon in the morning: Jagger swagger

Not often the scribbling of Tom Newton Dunn, The Sun's political editor, makes it onto Gordon's pages, but his story today that Mick Jagger is going to help Cameron promote Britain.

Of course, this is at an event overseas; Jagger and The Rolling Stones being famously averse to spending too long in Britain lest they actually pay their fair share of tax.

It's at Davos, which will give Mick a chance to visit his money at the same time.

This, apparently, is a "publicity coup":

The Rolling Stones legend will be star attraction at an event in Switzerland organised by Downing Street to boost investment to the UK in the Olympics year.

No10 is "tickled pink" with the publicity coup, a senior Government source told The Sun.

Hang about, though... what's this further down the story?

The tea party — officially hosted by London mayor Boris Johnson

So it's not actually organised by Downing Street, then?

In case you don't already feel queasy enough at this, somebody has come up with a "No 10's Top 10" of hilariously retitled Rolling Stones songs. It includes Paint It Blue and Little Blue Rooster. No, really.

Gordon in the morning: More on Mick's manhood

So it turns out that we're still talking about the size of Mick Jagger's cock. Last year, you'll have shut out of your mind, Keith Richards claimed that it was so miniscule, it was no tool at all.

Today, though, Pete Townshend has decided to defend the honorable member:

He said: "I think it's sad that we will only remember Keith's book because of what he said about the size of Mick's genitals. Which, by the way, to use an apt term, is b*******.

"I've seen them and they are not small. And it is not just the balls that are big."

Pete doesn't appear to consider that, perhaps, he happened to see Mick fully deployed while Keith couldn't stir Mick to such heights.

Gordon describes Pete's testimony as "first hand experience". If Mick was that huge, surely he'd have needed a second hand?

Keith Richards tries to make things better

Keith Richards gives Mick Jagger a bit of a going-over in his new autobiography, but he wants to make it clear that he's not at war with Mick or nuffink:

"You don't expect relationships to remain in the same groove all the time," he remarked.

You'll recall that the highlight of the book is Keith saying that Mick has got a small cock. Which means he perhaps should have chosen his words more carefully when explaining things:

"It goes up and it goes down and we always end on middle ground and find our spot together."

Gordon in the morning: The Jagger meister

Apparently the biggest story in showbiz this morning is something about Mick Jagger telling model Mick Jagger's Daughter that she has to stay in and do her revision.

This wouldn't even be worth noting, were it not for the result of pencil-sucking at The Sun thinking of something to say about Mick keeping Georgia Jagger at home.

WHEN MICK JAGGER was a snake-hipped, hellraising 18-year-old he was indulging in all sorts of rock 'n' roll antics and bad behaviour.

But was rock's Mr Pot banging on about the kettle when he sang Paint It Black?

I'm not a rock historian, but I'm pretty certain: no.

Gordon in the morning: Because Gordon is an oil painting

The idea that Georgia May is going to be hanging around being written about, simply because three decades ago her dad was making interesting music isn't one that brings any pleasure. She doesn't deserve the way Smart's writing about her this morning, though:

Georgia's a bit Mick and teef

I just wonder if Austin Powersslipped round to JERRY HALL's when ROLLING STONES star Mick was on tour, because her gnashers have a hint of the international man of mystery about them.

Apart from being just a gratuitous and cruel attack on someone's looks for no other reason than to fill an aching gap in the newspaper, it doesn't even make any sense. I mean... he does know that Austin Powers was a made-up person? And that the teeth were plastic?

It's the second time in a fortnight that Smart has written about Jagger - last time, apparently he managed to not notice the teeth. That time he was obsessed by how 'short' she is:

T'S unusual for a 5ft 7in girl to make it big in the model world.

Kate Moss is five foot six and a half.

Gordon in the morning: We're only trying to get us some peace

Whatever happened to Gordon Brown's use of the Widow Twankey ratings he was giving to Lady GaGa's outfits? Today he merely details that she wasn't wearing a bra. Perhaps he felt a bit ashamed of the whole "Twankeys out of ten" concept. But then, he's a grown man going "phwoarr, she's not wearing a bra", like a ten year-old caught in a Carry On movie, so perhaps he's just over-excited.

Elsewhere, Gordon has news of a collaboration:

JOSS STONE and MICK JAGGER are making sweet music together again.

Again?

The songbird and the wrinkly ROLLING STONE first collaborated in 2004 on track Lonely Without You, for the soundtrack to the movie Alfie.

Oh, yes... who could, erm, forget that one?

But now they have roped in some dazzling pals to make their next songs even more special.

Wow. Even more special than a track nobody's heard off a film that nobody saw? These must be some pretty dazzling pals indeed to deliver on such a promise.

The duo have been working with BOB MARLEY’s sons DAMIAN and STEPHEN as well as Slumdog Millionaire soundtrack composer A.R. RAHMAN and rapper NAS.

To you or I, this might sound like "some people who happened to be hanging about the recording studio who had a spare hour before lunch", but Gordon? Gordon's impressed:

It’s a mind-boggling roll call of musical heavy-hitters and they have come together to work on an album that will be issued on the UN’s International Day Of Peace, September 21.

A mind-boggling roll call? Really? The woman from the flake advert, someone's sons, a tax exile, a film composer and a random rapper? That boggles your mind, Gordon? Thank God you weren't born when Hear N Aid made Stars, your very head would have popped off and rolled clear down the street, like a whole pickled cabbage losing a fight with gravity.

Still, hats off to the UN for deciding to mark the International Day Of Peace by releasing a record from people known these days mostly for making a godawful racket.

You know what's missing from this well-meaning but pointless endeavour, though?

U2 frontman BONO is also involved in the project and has been recording separately with Damian.

Ah. There you are, Mr. Bono.

Mick Jagger has had sex with himself, effectively

MTV Brazil is encouraging safer sex by running an advertising campaign which seems to imply that whoever you have sex with will have had sex with Mick Jagger at some point, or words to that effect.

It's kind of like rock family trees, but with "shagged" replacing "drummed for version #3 of the band".

I'm not quite sure the chain manages to prove that all sex is, in effect, a circle jerk for Jagger - Eminem shagged Geri Halliwell? Johnny Thunders shagged the hole (sic) world? Something very odd about someone having sex with a tree that became the bed on which David Bowie shagged Mick Jagger?

The message is "always use condoms", although if you are going to have sex with a tree, be aware that condoms can't save you from splinters, even if they can help prevent unplanned saplings.

Gordon in the morning: Touché, Lily

Gordon stands on the sidelines as Lily Allen takes on Mike Skinner, applauding. Or at least copying stuff down from MySpace:

She said: “There’s a guy called Mike Skinner who records as The Streets and he did a record that basically talked about how awful it was to be rich and famous. I found that really boring.

“I’m always aware when I’m writing songs that other people have to be able to relate to them. If you look at a song like Not Fair, I think probably quite a lot of girls feel unsatisfied by their boyfriends in bed. I do. I think girls relate to that.”

You're right, Lily - god, Mike Skinner and his couplets about getting getting rich and famous and taking your clothes off and packing plastic and not knowing how it's supposed to make you feel. Oh... hang on, that one's yours, isn't it, Lily? You know, the song at number one that talks about how awful it is to be rich and famous?

And given that Skinner also managed to make an album out of a broken television and missing the return deadline for a DVD rental store, you might wonder if Allen has chosen the wrong target.

And since when did every song you listen to have to reflect your own life, anyway?

Perhaps she should stick to talking about drugs.

Still, Gordon must have taken in all this, and prepared a real zinger of a riposte, right?

It takes a brave man to date Lily.

Uh...

Let's move on, shall we? Mick Jagger has issued some sort of statement to kick off Brits week:

Mick thinks this is one of the best EVER times for British music — and he ruled rock for five decades.

He told me: “With British acts doing so well at the Grammys last week it’s proving to be a great period for home-grown talent right now.

“And what is so refreshing is the different styles that have been recognised — COLDPLAY, DUFFY, ADELE and RADIOHEAD make up an eclectic bunch, proving there’s a lot of fresh British talent out there.

“I like that these acts have paid their dues in the way we had to. There is certainly an upsurge of diverse Brit acts breaking through in the US and overseas — good to see it. Long may it continue.”

Jagger's ruled rock for five decades? What, from exile since about 1985?

Still, let's applaud that diversity - Coldplay, with their slow guitar music, Duffy, with her slightly faster guitar music, Adele, with her slow guitar music, but with a woman singing, and Radiohead, who make music that covers "everything else".

It's a pity Gordon didn't reveal if Jagger had memorised the BPI press release he was quoting, or if he was just reading it down the phoneline. Actually, Jagger's so rich, he might have a device which allows him to cut and paste someone else's words into his actual conversation.

Nice to see Jagger so enthusiastic about "paying dues", too - slightly ironic from a man whose band arranges tours to avoid paying taxes as far as possible. Even if you do accept that it's a Good Thing to slog around the lower levels before achieving success, it's hardly as if Adele and Duffy spent five or six years humping drumkits into TJs and the Roadmenders, working their way up through indie labels, before landing a slot on a major and releasing two overlooked albums before their breakthrough.

Still, this time, Gordon, you must have a zinger, right?

I can’t wait to toast them all at Wednesday’s bash.

Oh.

"Turn left at Sympathy For The Devil Close and take the shortcut through State Of Shock Drive..."

Dartford - boyhood home of Jagger and Richards - is proud of its famous sons. It gives them something to talk about other than the tunnel. So, how better to celebrate a new housing estate than to give the streets names related to Rolling Stones songs?

Yes, there's even a Ruby Tuesday Drive, which if isn't already the name for a sex act presumably will be by sunset tonight.

What this really tells us is not how proud Dartford are of the Stones, but what the vintage of the council who approved the idea is:

Leader of the council, Jeremy Kite, said he thought Ruby Tuesday Drive sounded a "fantastic" place to live.

Passing Americans will assume it's named after an unpleasant chain restaurant, and expect to see an intersection with Red Lobster Avenue, but let's give Kite his moment:

"It is a very groovy development - a very modern, creative community and I think people will enjoy the street names," he said.

Yes, he did just call it a "groovy" development. He really, really did. In 2008. Dartford Council have told the Ordnance Survey to not feature the new housing estate on its maps, as the only directions you need are that, man, it's just out there.

Kite doesn't explain why a modern community would be the best place to slap down some names of songs that are the best part of half a century old - he was presumably on his way to open the Ivor Gurney Youth Centre.

Richards, Jagger tut at Amy Winehouse

You'd imagine if anyone had sympathy for Amy Winehouse, it'd be the Rolling Stones.

Not so:

"She should get her act together," the former junkie said during a round-table interview at the Berlin International Film Festival on Friday to promote Martin Scorsese's Rolling Stones documentary "Shine a Light."

The often-addled rocker paused, then added: "Apart from that, I have got nothing to say to the bitch."

'Pull yourself together'. That's a constructive approach, Keith. Mind you, what would you expect from someone who calls a woman a "bitch" for no reason.

Jagger, meanwhile, tried to make it seem like they were a little less hypocritical by suggesting that back in their day, drugs were new and unknown:

"When we were experimenting with drugs, little was known about the effects," Jagger said.

Cocaine was banned in the United States in 1914. Heroin addiction was being studied seriously in New York in the 1950s and the problem was well known enough in the UK in the 1960s for a survey of addicts receiving treatment to be the subject of what would become a thirty-year study. For a time in the 1950s, it seemed that all movies included some sort of reference to pot, potheads, and the risks. Reefer Madness came out in 1935. And Jagger is trying to say that nobody knew anything about the effects of drugs in the mid 1960s?

"In our time there were no rehab centers like today. Anyway, I did not know about them."

So, the information was there, but you chose to ignore it. Isn't that exactly the same recklessness you're accusing Winehouse of?

Snoop Dogg is out of ideas

Snoop Dogg has revealed the collaborators he'd most like to work with - and, iin the process, that he's effectively lost all interest in music:

"I want to work with Madonna, Bono or Mick Jagger," he said. "I'm on some rock shit, man. Snoop Dogg, man! Rappers don't really move me too much. They can't do what I did. I'm trying to get down with something that's outta the box and bigger than me."

Now, we can understand the desire to try something new - even if discussing making a piece as art using the phrase "out of the box", like a song is on a par with a strategy for selling toilet paper to Idaho suggests that there's precious little creativity left.

But Bono? Madonna? Jagger? Is the prospect of working with such clapped-out performers really enticing you? The only people who think of Bono or Madonna as innovative and 'out of the box' are... well, the same sort of people who think of Dogg as edgy and innovative, probably.

He's much happier talking about opportunities to sell stuff:

In 2008, Snoop wants to introduce a new clothing line called "Rich and Infamous," a brand of pet-care products and a chain of grocery stores called "Snoopermarkets."

We bet that pun came before the concept.

First Mel C - now Amy Winehouse

Good news for the Bizarre team this morning - they've landed a story in the second slot on the Sun website, with the arrant wasp toss that Amy Winehouse "might" spend Christmas with Bryan Adams. Oh, and Mick Jagger.

Apparently Adams - who had a thing for Diana Spencer, we recall, and look how that turned out - has suggested a trip to Mustique. And when the paper says Mick will be there too, that turns out to be an extrapolation from Jagger having a hiding from the taxman in a house on the island.

The whole thing is sourced to a "friend" of Amy Winehouse, who may well have heard from Amy that she's off to spend Christmas with Bryan Adams. But the state Winehouse is in now she may also believe she's going to fly to The Philippines with Victoria Adams. Or the moon with Grizzly Adams.

Like father?

It's only one step away from a full-on Oedipus complex: James Jagger is rumoured to be lined up to play his pappy in next year's Rolling Stoned movie.

Of course, it might be a little icky to be bother playing off and living off his Dad at his age; but at least he won't have to worry about demeaning himself modelling again.