IpMan Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmic_juice Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpMan Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.