I was having a discussion with a friend of mine this weekend and we started talking about white blues artists. This discussion of course drifted to the Stones and then to Mick's solo work. We both agreed that the best solo material Mick has ever done has been his bluesy stuff. So is Mick a better blues artist than Keith?

I am saying that he is better simply because his harmonica work is so good. Plus his most honest vocals seem to be his vocals on the bluesier songs the Stones have done.

aren't they in the same band?

Yes. But as individuals who is the better blues artists?

its mick, no its keith , no its mick, no its keith

duck geese!!!!!!!!! duck geese??????????

a stretch to call either a bluesman. who does blues with more authenticity, maybe? i'd give the slight nod to keith....

In the old days, Keith...but Mick is giving him a run for the money

The one that wears the least amount of eyeliner.

I think Mick is a much better blues vocalist and harp player than Keith is a blues guitarist.

I think if they really go DEEEEEP, Keith comes out as a winner:





- Doxa

Of course, one can put the guys do the same number and see who does better:









- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-14 18:20 by Doxa.

Quote
harlito1969
I think Mick is a much better blues vocalist and harp player than Keith is a blues guitarist.

The Stones have always been a blues band at heart ,haven't they ?
The better bluesman :Keith or Mick ? I would answer Mick ,althought I am not a guitarist myself .
Just for some Jagger's performances as Dust My Broom and Going Down Live at The Mustique Festival ,The Red Devils etc.
The most obvious are the Checkboard Louge ,the way he seems to be completely out of his body during the set ,as at the Beacon Theater with Buddy Guy. Chickencreeps !!

“He stole my music but he gave me my name.”
~ Muddy Waters on Mick Jagger



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Just listen to still a fool on about them shoes- says it all.

OLDKR

remember, it was mick who was carrying the stack of Chess records when they met on the train after years of being separated...

i carry around stacks of blues records, but i don't think it makes me a bluesman

Quote
cc
remember, it was mick who was carrying the stack of Chess records when they met on the train after years of being separated...

Well, I think that of them Mick - always more the trendy follower and snobbish one - was more a blues purist in the early days (nothing to compared to Brian Jones, though), while Keith was always too "teddy boy", and not keen on making distinctions between the blues, rock&roll, or country... for example, the blues purist people ran out of Brian's band when Richards walked in... But Mick was quick to integrate new sounds and styles when necessary for a success, so I don't think Micks' affection into blues was very deep in the end. In some interview he described that he was keen on the blues when he was from fifteen to twenty, then grew up. I don't think Mick thinks very 'seriously' about the blues, but it is one of the styles he knows very well, and can do almost autopilot if he feels like. I mean, what you listen in between your 15-20 years, you will remember the rest of your lives.

- Doxa

Mick by quite a long way. I love Keith but I don't think he sounds bluesy at all these days.

yeah, Tod & Doxa, I was just being as silly as I think the original question is. I would agree to disagree with the notion that the Stones are really a blues band at heart. They learned all their blues from Chess records--they're a Chess records band at heart, kind of grungy and high energy. I was listening to the outtake "I Don't Know the Reason Why" the other day, a slow blues that is interesting to hear them try but really isn't that good. It's always wonderful to hear them do a Jimmy Reed, Chuck Berry, or Slim Harpo style (though I guess one of those was actually on Chess), but their window on the blues is pretty limited. And that's fine, as they developed other styles.

Mick or Keith? Mick (Taylor)

Yeah Mick Taylor has the most blues, for quitting and doin little else. Good player too.

Mick, Mick, always has been THE MICKSTER.....

Mick would get the nod on this one from me anyways - although Keith could give him a run for the money. Mick ain't bad for a skinny white kid from England!
I just watched Doxa's post of Worried Life Blues and its a tie!!!

You listen to Mick singing with Muddy and you realise - Jagger can't sing the blues. He sounds like a child.

Keith can certainly play them.

Keith all the way.

Quote
oldkr
Just listen to still a fool on about them shoes- says it all.

OLDKR

.......well that would incite the ultimate bathroom break.

<He sounds like a child>

He WAS a child! Listen to I can't Be Satisfied - sounds awesome in there

No contest! Mick for sure. Too many reasons to begin to list but his harp playing is one major reason, especially since Keith has had maybe a total of 6 years where you could call his playing " inspired".

Quote
mickschix
No contest! Mick for sure. Too many reasons to begin to list but his harp playing is one major reason, especially since Keith has had maybe a total of 6 years where you could call his playing " inspired".

if you were keithschix, you'd post differently...

Too funny!!Well, Stones Tod, for those who disagree, I'd like to hear them outline when Keith's playing was inspired, in the last 15 years, when Blondie wasn't playing his parts for him. When Mick gets into it, like when he plays with the likes of Buddy Guy, there's no one that can compare....IMO! LOL

Quote
mickschix
Too funny!!Well, Stones Tod, for those who disagree, I'd like to hear them outline when Keith's playing was inspired, in the last 15 years, when Blondie wasn't playing his parts for him. When Mick gets into it, like when he plays with the likes of Buddy Guy, there's no one that can compare....IMO! LOL

hmmmm...well, buddy showed both mick and keith who the real bluesman was at the beacon...frankly, both of the glimmers looked and sounded like school boys there - and buddy took them to school.

mick's a jack of all trades as a vocalist...master of none, though.

I think that both Mick and Keith were deferring to ole Buddy that night, out of respect. They were giving him his due and letting him shine in that spotlight...and I think that was very noble of them. Mick can hold his own with any of the old blues artists, as was the case at MSG when ole Humbert joined them on stage as an unexpected guest. Mick's got his mojo working!! Keith, well, I think he's certainly got soul but it takes more to inspire him lately.

somebody was holding back, but it wasn't mick or keith...if you've seen buddy in concert before, you know that he was holding back out of respect for mick and keith.