|
|
| moy |
Jagger explains Brit award refusal
1 hour ago
Sir Mick Jagger has revealed why he turned down a Brit award.
The Rolling Stones were offered an Outstanding Contribution to Music award.
Recipients of the gong include Sir Paul McCartney and Oasis.
The 64-year-old frontman said: "I think we were offered it and we said we couldn't be bothered or we were in Hawaii or somewhere while it was on.
"This sort of living legends stuff awards is not really for me, if I am lucky enough.
"I mean I appreciate being offered. I like being offered things, but I think that you got to be a bit careful of all that status. I think it changes you a little bit."
He told Ben Jones on Virgin Radio: "It does say that he's done that, and you never have another song to write after that song... I don't really now what it does for you."
|
|
|
| Gazza |
Every time the BPI honour someone with a Lifetime Achievement award like that, they insist on the artist performing at the ceremony. If they refuse, they offer it to someone else - which basically shows how much the BPI value it.
The Stones have never performed at this show. That would be the obvious reason why theyve never got this award.
Considering some of the other 'legends' who have been honoured ahead of them (the Spice Girls for Chrissakes!! Macca - as a SOLO artist!!), they should tell the BPI to stick their statuette up their keester. |
|
|
| Bitch |
Oh well I think MICK is acting like stuck up snob! Too busy for that lowly award ceremony? He should go get the damn award, the Stones deserve it more than anyone else I can think of! |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Bitch wrote:
Oh well I think MICK is acting like stuck up snob! Too busy for that lowly award ceremony? He should go get the damn award, the Stones deserve it more than anyone else I can think of!
You're missing the point, Ellen. They only deem the Stones (or any artist) worthy of the 'Outstanding Contribution' award IF they show up - otherwise they offer it to someone else. It totally devalues the whole point of the award - the motivation isnt to honour an artist's work, its to give the show a bit of a ratings boost by having a well known old fart perform a few of their hits at the end of it. The award is just 'dressing' to coax the artist to turn up. It's meaningless. (Incidentally, the insistence that the artist has to turn up and perform doesnt seem to apply to the rest of the awards given out during the ceremony - just this one)
The Stones were given a Lifetime Achievement by the Grammys in 1986. They didnt attend that one either, but were still presented with it in London and the whole thing was beamed to LA via satellite.
Have you ever heard of any other awards ceremony in the world which disqualifies a recipient based on whether theyre able to attend or not (often for very good reasons - the Stones when theyre on tour tend to be on the other side of the world when this ceremony tales place)? Cant imagine that happening at the Oscars, Grammys or Golden Globes. It renders the entire spirit of the award redundant.
why should the Stones be expected to cancel a show somewhere so they can play some awards show?
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
