Jump to content

Watching the Stones


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...