Slate Chocolate Marble
Slate Chocolate Marble

Led Zeppelin Official Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
poortom

Watching the Stones

30 posts in this topic

The Rolling Stones nailed it. I’m not the biggest fan of the Stones, but they earned my respect at that gig. Sympathy for the Devil had a strong running flow to it. And for the record, Mick set the template for front man that all others have had to try and follow and I’m not even a fan of Jagger. Unlike Elvis, Mick never got fat. He kept himself in great shape proving he actually cares and when he steps on stage, he is dressed the part always proving that he believes in giving it 100%.

I gotta agree with that Charles, Mick takes his shit seriously. IMO though he is really the only one up there that still does. It's not that Keith and the rest of them suck, it's just that they got old mentally. I think many can make up for physical age if a person keeps themselves in shape, however if a person feels old they will act old and the other members looked and acted old up there. Mick carried the whole show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that Mick Jagger's a better front man than Robert Plant, Mick Jagger is quite simply the greatest rock n' roll front man of them all! Of course there are numerous front men who are better vocalists - to include Robert Plant - but no one matches Jagger for his swagger.

Jagger is a great show man; no question about it. He's got the swagger and the moves. However, the late Freddie Mercury had the swagger and the moves plus a far better singing voice. He gets my vote as greatest rock n'roll front man. Different strokes for different folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jagger is a great show man; no question about it. He's got the swagger and the moves. However, the late Freddie Mercury had the swagger and the moves plus a far better singing voice. He gets my vote as greatest rock n'roll front man. Different strokes for different folks.

I can see why you feel that way, but I feel Mercury's presentation was far too camp. Jagger could be camp at times as well, but he could also be masculine, sinister, athletic, brooding, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why you feel that way, but I feel Mercury's presentation was far too camp. Jagger could be camp at times as well, but he could also be masculine, sinister, athletic, brooding, etc.

i love both performers but hands down without a doubt Mercury could eat Jagger alive as a frontman... Jagger trumps him in ego for sure... but Mercury was much more consistent with his great performances than Jagger... don't get me wrong Jagger has energy enthusiasm bravado etc..

and while Mercury (i guess) could come off campy... he had all of what Jagger has plus he hit the notes on top of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love both performers but hands down without a doubt Mercury could eat Jagger alive as a frontman... Jagger trumps him in ego for sure... but Mercury was much more consistent with his great performances than Jagger... don't get me wrong Jagger has energy enthusiasm bravado etc..

and while Mercury (i guess) could come off campy... he had all of what Jagger has plus he hit the notes on top of it

Damn right! No one, and I mean NO ONE tops Freddie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0