Who was luckier to find his companion Glimmer?

I think they both were lucky...Mick needs Keith and Keith needed Mick and together they have been the very best..
When they are not together they are only soso....they are good but only average!

If i had to pick, i would say Keith was the luckier one because he is so shy and i think Mick helped him become more confident
and grow...But i go back and have to say they were both very lucky to have met BRIAN JONES because without him
neither would be stars they are today....Mick be running a business after he got out of college....

Brian had the star power and drive to help make them both superstars!

Charlie...Charlie...Charlie...
the drummer they Had To Have...
it all fell into place when they got Mr. Watts.

agree. they need each other. but mick on it´s own works better than keith on it´s own. keith´s songs are unfinished till mick finds a way how to sing them.
mick can finish a song alone. but again, best together.

Keith would still be serving time if he had not found Mick on the Dartford platform.

Quote
Edith Grove
Keith would still be serving time if he had not found Mick on the Dartford platform.

yeah ! Keith's career choices weren't as varied as Mick's..

mick was the lucky one .keith creates music .mick sings music

Hard to tell...



...but after almost 50 years they could do neither with nor without each other,I guess.

Keith was luckier. Even if they had never met one another, we would still know Mick's name today. Not so sure about Keith's.

I also have to say I think Keith was luckier. To be honest I like Keith solo much much more than Mich solo, but I am also not sure we would know about Keith today hadn't he met Mick. All in all I think we were lucky :-)

But thinking about it, there are so many IF - as was said before, they were both lucky they met Brian. Then Keith was somehow lucky (unlike Brian) they had Andrew Oldham - without him Brian's position would be much stronger and Keith might had stayed "just" the second guitarplayer. We could go on and make it more and more complex, so I'll stop here :-) I answered the question in the first sentence anyway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-30 19:07 by Happy24.

I would say Keith as in my opinion, being at the LSE and with his middle-class background, Mick would have had a far better "normal" future than Keith.

They were both lucky to meet Brian Jones and Ian Stewart.

Quote
shortfatfanny
Hard to tell...



...but after almost 50 years they could do neither with nor without each other,I guess.

Always loved this picture and wish they shared this emotion today.

"No Anchovies, Please"

As Keith wrote 100% of all music until '67, 80% until mid 70's and 50/50 ever since I'd say Jagger is the lucky one. Richards would have ended up in music one way or the other while Jagger was dearly in danger of becoming an accountant.

Mathijs

we are the lucky ones.

it is good to thank & praise, exalt & glorify, acclaim & extol, bless & adore
hail hail Rolling Stones ~ and chag sameach, to whom it may concern

Quote
Mathijs
As Keith wrote 100% of all music until '67, 80% until mid 70's and 50/50 ever since I'd say Jagger is the lucky one. Richards would have ended up in music one way or the other while Jagger was dearly in danger of becoming an accountant.

Mathijs

yes, but keith songs are nothing without mick.
and a singer can sing everyones music.
happens every day, go and see the charts.
how many songs wrote elvis or sinatra???

not too many i would say.

Keith was lucky, because Mick had all these imported records under his arm.
And from that point on, WE are the lucky ones.

Quote
urbanjungle90
I would say Keith as in my opinion, being at the LSE and with his middle-class background, Mick would have had a far better "normal" future than Keith.

They were both lucky to meet Brian Jones and Ian Stewart.

But Jagger didn't want a "normal" future. He would have been a 'nobody' all his life when he hadn't joined the Stones. He always wanted to be a 'star', by any means and in whatever way (in music, film, whatever).

Quote
with sssoul
we are the lucky ones.

oh isn't that sweet.

I would say Keith was the luckier. He would have had a future as a musician no matter what, but unless he encountered someone as unusual as Mick, he would not have found fame and fortune as he has in the Stones.

Mick once made the comment that if he wasn't a singer, he would have had some other kind of show business career, as he felt he was a natural entertainer. But you also have to remember that he spent his whole childhood studying to prepare for his career in business. You could say that that is the essential Mick, that he was business-minded from the very outset. He would have been successful no matter what he would have done. As far as a career in rock music, if he had decided to pursue it, there were plenty of other talented musicians around at the time, and I do believe he would have been extremely successful as a singer and frontman.

In fact, they were both lucky to have met *Brian*, because he was the one who really had the vision for the group, and pulled them together in the earliest days.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
urbanjungle90
I would say Keith as in my opinion, being at the LSE and with his middle-class background, Mick would have had a far better "normal" future than Keith.

They were both lucky to meet Brian Jones and Ian Stewart.

But Jagger didn't want a "normal" future. He would have been a 'nobody' all his life when he hadn't joined the Stones. He always wanted to be a 'star', by any means and in whatever way (in music, film, whatever).

You are correct, normal was probably the wrong term, I was thinking along the lines of politics. I remember reading that Jagger wanted to become a politician (could have been Wymans Stone Alone), so I was thinking along the lines of that really, not necessarily normal thinking about it, but more so then an entertainer in my opinion.

Quote
urbanjungle90

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
urbanjungle90
I would say Keith as in my opinion, being at the LSE and with his middle-class background, Mick would have had a far better "normal" future than Keith.

They were both lucky to meet Brian Jones and Ian Stewart.

But Jagger didn't want a "normal" future. He would have been a 'nobody' all his life when he hadn't joined the Stones. He always wanted to be a 'star', by any means and in whatever way (in music, film, whatever).

You are correct, normal was probably the wrong term, I was thinking along the lines of politics. I remember reading that Jagger wanted to become a politician (could have been Wymans Stone Alone), so I was thinking along the lines of that really, not necessarily normal thinking about it, but more so then an entertainer in my opinion.

I agree. He surely would have loved to be some sort of Blair kind of guy. But without the Iraq involvement of course.

Quote
Bliss
In fact, they were both lucky to have met *Brian*, because he was the one who really had the vision for the group, and pulled them together in the earliest days.

what was brian's vision? How would you describe his concept for the band?

I've thought about this and it really is a toss up....

And I don't think you can really answer this question...

but great post!!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

To pick one, I'd say Mick was lucky to find Keith. The satisfaction riff was really pivotal.

It's a nonsense question, really, but I'd have to go for Mick - for the reason Mathijs stated.

As for Edith Groves 'prison' comment: What are you basing this on, exactly? If anything, meeting Mick and joining The Rolling Stones has got the man in more trouble.

Mick. Their individual solo success speaks for itself.

Quote
Big Al
As for Edith Groves 'prison' comment: What are you basing this on, exactly?

Speculation, based on Keith's lack of direction in life at the time of the meeting, and his lawless behavior afterwards.

Keith likes to claim that the Stones is the only job he's ever had, but I believe it's been stated that he worked at a post office for about a day or so before quitting or getting fired.
Then there's Keith's taste for drugs, which nearly killed him and/or destroyed the band.

Of course, it could be argued that the Stones' lifestyle brought on this behavior, but I believe that most people need to have a pre-disposal for this behavior to carry on for such a long time as Keith has.
I don't believe Mick has this pre-disposal.

Keith has, of course, contributed enormously to the success of the band, but I credit Mick & the rest of the boys, and later on Patti, for keeping things together where Keith is concerned.

The question is hard to answer, but these two men who are completely different, somehow fitted together well, they made a deal together which was very successful as we know.

mick probably would have been an actor if he had not met keith , and a much better one than he is now because he would not have to live up to the rolling stone legend

Quote
with sssoul
we are the lucky ones.

it is good to thank & praise, exalt & glorify, acclaim & extol, bless & adore
hail hail Rolling Stones ~ and chag sameach, to whom it may concern

Quite quite quite quite and QUITE !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]