I'm arguing with an friend about the question, if Mick Jagger used a certain androgynous appearance in order to outline a new generation or so. Do you think, Mick had an androgyneous look in the 60ies / in the 70ies, or not?

Tell me everything, you may think about this topic.

Of course

Mick is the original publicity whore. Anything to get free coverage in the press. He looked a lot more masculine on the American 1792 tour than the Europe 1793 tour. But I think Europe 1793 was due to the influence of Mozart.

1972-75 is the campiest years.

......yes, if you were to look up "androgynous" in the dictionary you would see a photo of Mick from the '70's.

Mick Jagger... androgynous appearance in the 70s?

ya think?

1972-75 Id classify as the stones go "Glam Rock". From Micks wierd looking appearences to the stage gimmicks (Lotus Stage, Giant Penis, etc.) it looked like Glam Rock. Not being from that era though, maybe that was just rock and roll of the time? If im not mistaken I thought I read where fire dancers appeared onstage with Zeppelin during Moby Dick (Or was that just for TSRTS?). However after 10 minutes of a drum solo the other half hour would need some kind of stupid entertainment I guess.

Just look at the Goats Head Soup cover.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-24 16:53 by parislocksmith.

He was all man on the 1792 tour.

Well, He played Brian and then developed his own unisex persona and peaked in 1975. He was stunning, so cool. The band never looked better. Even Keith was androgynous. In the 60s Mick was just a geek before he tried to be Brian. He was Andrewgynous.

He invented it

Well, I don't think that Mick "invented" androgyny in rock.

I don't even think Bowie invented it ("The Man Who Sold the World" and all that followed). There were a lot of things going on in hipper clubs in the most progressive cities, such as performances by the Cockettes, and that scene drew attention from trend-setters and celebrities.

My take on it is that Mick adapted a lot of what was going on at the time and gave it his own touch. Even so, Mick established his limits. Mick and Keith never developed a schtick like Bowie and Mick Ronson (although Mick carried on with Ron and Billy on in a way that never would have been allowed to happen with Keith).

By the time that 1978 rolled around, Mick was applying punk touches to the glam look, and then in 1981 he was prancing around in a football uniform: the epitome of masculinity.

Of course, all that I've posted above may be utter bollocks.

Esquerita........................Little Richard........................Mick Jagger



ROCKMAN

Monkeylad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> By the time that 1978 rolled around, Mick was
> applying punk touches to the glam look, and then
> in 1981 he was prancing around in a football
> uniform: the epitome of masculinity.
>
> Of course, all that I've posted above may be utter
> bollocks.


Prancing and masculinity just don't seem to go together. Is it just me? It's him, right?

stonesrule Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was all man on the 1792 tour.

That's because Pierre La Roche was powdering Mozart. Mick was FURIOUS!

I dunno--I remember when Mick Jagger was the synonym for androgyny, or at least the epitome of it...Bowie had the drag look and the movement yes, but I think Mick was a bit sooner--or not?

I think they inspired each other.

Thought the knee pads were kinda definitive...

....there was a definitive underground NYC scene that developed on the lower east side and on lower Broadway, (SoHo) in the very early 70's. Some of it filtered through a new gay club scene, some through Warhols Factory (one of his studios was located just north of SoHo at Union Square), and certainly some through NY's lower east side rock scene that eventually gave birth to bands like the NY Dolls in 1971.
Jagger's flamboyant androgynous personna followed quickly thereafter. But Jagger was already on to something in the late 60's. He was primed to take advantage of that scene in the early 70's as one of it's first pin up boys...he was already a huge star....and as all the pictures from that era clearly illustrate, he was quite beautiful back then.

All serious biographers agree that during the period 1973 through 1976 Mick Jagger tried to experience his androgyneous sides, and most probably he even had male sexual relationships (if only casually). Remember, this was the zeitgeist of the day.

That attitude is very striking on the tours of 1973, 1975 and 1976 with lots of makeup, female looks and gay elements in the show, especially during the 1975 and 1976 tours. You can see a picture of such a scene with Billy Preston in Annie Leibovitz' book on the 1975 US tour, and I saw it myself at a concert in 1976. There is a video which was filmed in 1976, probably in an empty hall in Cologne, Germany, where the 'gay show' reached its climax.

In 1978 times had changed, and Mick obviously returned to heterosexuality...

This statement is based on serious books so it's no 'looking under the sheets'.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-14 13:34 by saltoftheearth.

Then again, Micks lips and his looks in the mid 60s, wasnt he considered androgynous by some journalists?

" and then in 1981 he was prancing around in a football uniform: the epitome of masculinity. "

Yes, the horror. He never looked worse.

That photo of Little Richard reminds me how great of a debt is owed to black musicians for inspiring the music and moves that the Stones created (or borrowed).

And while I know there's a big difference between androgyny and drag, let's not forget the sleeve of Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?

Mick apparently went through a very campy phase in the Edith Grove days - i've read in at least a couple of books
about him waltzing around that flat in a frilly blue housecoat - just practicing for 73, i reckon :E
and of course people (including journalists, even!) perceived them as androgynous in the 60s -
long hair on guys was widely viewed as a sign of who-knows-what, remember?
and i recall real clearly how the grown-ups around me reacted to that second 1966 Sullivan show -
the androgyny bugged 'em so much they couldn't even articulate it! go Stones :E



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-14 23:10 by with sssoul.

Withsssoul puts the light to something Crucial here;
they opened the doors to all the "wild" and "crazy" styles
of fashion and living which we saw in the mid- & late 60s
and all decades till now after that.

This is one of the main reasons why I love them so much.

As I see it, this androgynity (? word?) is now worked into
their personalities in a productive and progressive way.

If more people listened to the Stones (esp. circa 1966-76)
the world would be a better place to live in, less macho.

/ Baboon "Hippy In Disguise" Bro

SomeTorontoGirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thought the knee pads were kinda definitive...


....good one TorontoDarling.......I got it

He camped it up to a level that even David Bowie got really impressed... And he was the Queen of Camp.