Mick Jagger’s surprising dismissal of a hugely popular group as 'too synthetic' reveals a fascinating clash in music tastes. But here’s where it gets controversial—was he right, or missing the bigger picture?
It’s no secret that The Rolling Stones were far from being the most diplomatically polite figures in the music world. While many people picture Mick Jagger and Keith Richards as charming rock legends today, back in the early days, most writings painted them as rebellious, unruly troublemakers—the quintessential punk spirits of their era. Mick Jagger, with his gift of gab, often expressed his opinions boldly, and naturally, there were bands out there that he simply didn’t connect with.
That said, The Stones weren’t snobs about music by any stretch. Their early hits, like the contemplative 'As Tears Go By' written by Jagger and Richards, showed they could embrace softer, more melodic tunes rather than strictly hard-edged rock. Albums such as Between the Buttons ventured into some experimental sounds, indicating the band’s willingness to explore beyond raw rock. Yet, the ultimate testament to their legacy has always been their electrifying live performances—each concert a unique experience where unpredictability reigned. Jagger embodied the classic blues frontman, drawing inspiration from greats like Muddy Waters and B.B. King, while also allowing room for pop-infused tracks here and there.
Songs like 'We Love You,' which even featured The Beatles during recording, display that crossover appeal, and their ballads such as 'Wild Horses' carry a heartfelt beauty that resonates deeply. However, by the early 1970s, with the rise of the singer-songwriter era, the music scene also welcomed an explosion of pure pop acts dominating charts worldwide.
In the American market, we had artists like Captain & Tennille who polarized listeners, but then there was ABBA—a Swedish group with undeniable magnetic energy. Their songs might have been polished to a degree that raised eyebrows in rock circles, yet tracks like 'Dancing Queen' and the rhythmically intricate 'SOS' possess a charm and groove that stand apart from any rock formula.
But Mick Jagger wasn’t convinced. When questioned about ABBA, he openly admitted, “What can I say? I don’t want to be mean to the biggest Swedish group. I don’t think they’re very representative of rock and roll. It’s a sort of pop group. Synthetic. I’m sure they’re very nice.” This blunt statement challenges fans and critics alike: Was Jagger unfairly dismissing a band that simply didn’t fit into his rock-centric worldview?
After all, ABBA never pretended to be a rock band. Although some of their tracks feature electrifying guitars and borrow elements from progressive music, no one in 1979 was listening to 'Take A Chance On Me' expecting the thunderous drums or crashing guitars typical of rock anthems. Their mission was to light up rooms with joy and dance, to make music that touched hearts through catchy hooks rather than raw rock energy.
So even if Jagger failed to appreciate this style, does that diminish ABBA’s impact? Absolutely not. They didn’t align with traditional rock and roll standards, but their infectious melodies have a special way of lifting spirits—so much so that anyone unimpressed by their tunes might as well be "legally dead."
And this is the part most people miss: Is the label “pop” unfairly used as a slight? Can the essence and enjoyment of music be truly measured by adherence to rock’s conventions, or is there room for different kinds of brilliance?
What do you think? Was Mick Jagger too harsh in his critique of ABBA, or does the music world still struggle to accept pop as a legitimate art form alongside rock? Let us know your thoughts below—agree, disagree, or have a fresh take? Debate is welcome!
