Who do you like better: Mick or Keith? And who is the more important Rolling Stone, Mick or Keith? Justify your answer with at least 25 words or so.

And no one can say "I like them both." That is a cop out.

Only one word Mick

__________________________

Like them both. Theyre both Cooler than...Cool..yea

Keith... always true to his fans, himself and r&r...
and I'm not talking about fancy stories

he's a really, really nice character. can't say that about Mick! although Mick is my favorite frontman and singer of all times

Quote
NICOS
Only one word Mick

Just read your post again.........you ask two questions

Who do you like better: Mick or Keith? Keith
And who is the more important Rolling Stone, Mick or Keith? Mick

__________________________

What an interesting thread, mitchinflorida!
My answer is: blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah!! Blah! Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah? Blah????? Blah!!! Blah blah blah blah!

Quote
Erik_Snow
What an interesting thread, mitchinflorida!
My answer is: blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah!! Blah! Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah? Blah????? Blah!!! Blah blah blah blah!

Erik, why doesn't only one 'blah' suffice?

Definitely Ronnie.

Mick is the hardworking, Keith is the lazy one - but I like both of them despite the different personalities.

Quote
mitchflorida
Who do you like better: Mick or Keith? And who is the more important Rolling Stone, Mick or Keith? Justify your answer with at least 25 words or so.

And no one can say "I like them both." That is a cop out.

I like them both.

Sue me.

Daft thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-21 01:36 by Gazza.

I used to like them both. Then Mick became so obviously unlikeable (one word - Primitive Cool). But it is very much Mick who has pulled the band together, held it together, and spurred it on to whatever questionable results in the modern era. That takes a lot of energy, and focus. Still haven't answered your question...I have definetly come to respect him a lot, while at the same time losing respect for Keith. The Winos IMO was superb; everything about it. But I think Keith has since come to look like a fool within the Stones. And Jagger has discovered some sense of humility - I THINK. That Italian interview with Jagger showed him a good light. And in many events lately Jagger has somehow come out looking...well as a nice guy.
I like Jagger OFF stage more than ON stage.
And Keith? There was a clip a while back of him doing "Don't let em drop that Atomic Bomb" with Bernard sitting next to him. I actually thought his solo was bogus for a while, but have changed my mind. For a London rocker it is pretty good, imagination and all. I think Keith's biggest downfall is that he is surrounded by yes-men, and wants to keep it that way. Were he challenged even a bit; like in a real band setting, I think he would rise to the occasion in his own way.
So who do I like more? I like them both just the same. Sorry.

I can imagine theyre spend a fortune on getting there Farrier to reshoe all there Horses that can be a fulltime job with that amount of Horses.

Well, what do you mean, 'like'? Liking, meaning admiration for a musician or performer, or whose personality and character do you prefer?

As far as the music goes, I am for Mick all the way.

As to whom I would respect more as a human being, or prefer to have as a friend, I have mixed feelings.

Mick:

Pro

Hard-working, cultured, witty, intelligent, supposedly a great host, reputedly a GREAT lover, very health-conscious like me, kept the band together during difficult times

Con

Has treated the women in his life horribly, compulsively promiscuous and unfaithful (at least in the past), has ripped off other musicians, cold and unresponsive to fans, seldom reveals anything in interviews


Keith:

Pro

Good heart, treats his family and ex very well, extremely funny and insightful in interviews, somewhat more responsive to fans

Con

Self-indulgent with regard to his vices, past violence with Anita, nearly wrecked the band with his drug/alcohol use, treated friends and associates very badly during his drug years according to a few biographers, ripped off other musicians, petty attacks on Mick in the press, very selfish smoker



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-21 01:39 by Bliss.

SORRY wrong thread

People who can't make it in NY end up in Florida, so my answer is New York.

Keith

In many ways, Mick Jagger is an underrated vocalist. I noticed that on American Idol this week. Only one of the 12 aspiring singers could even touch Mick's versions of his songs. That is the reason that most Rolling Stones songs aren't covered by other artists . . it is next to impossible to top Mick. And he makes it seem easier than it is. (Compare Mick to Bob Dylan . .. Dylan has about 35 songs that were made into hits by other groups because a lot of people don't care for Dylan's singing.)

Here is the one Stones song where I think the cover version might be as good as Mick'. Of course, they are both great treatments in their way . .

UPDATED







Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-21 14:29 by mitchflorida.

i have met neither gentleman here. they are inseperable as an iconic super power force glim twinz for real...but, i would guess i'd be more comfortable around Mr. Richards cause I think hangin' w the big unavoidably 'personified' mick would be a bit like baby sitting or sumthing. gosh don't mean to be disrespectful; don't know either and don't expect to meet up or anything. but keith's love for books, history, his well earned softness after years of having to be so tough...his dedication to Patti and kids etc...i guess i'd have more in personal common with K....and have no particular desire to hang with big superstaaah egos etc...

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Erik_Snow
What an interesting thread, mitchinflorida!
My answer is: blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah!! Blah! Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah? Blah????? Blah!!! Blah blah blah blah!

Erik, why doesn't only one 'blah' suffice?

cause Erik has a lot to say...even if it's blah. tho i think if he uses the occasional blaahhhdy blah bluhhh and stuff, you'd be more receptive. but the man has his ways....

both because without either one of them there would be no stones , hence the middle of the road solo careers

Actually I'm not too thrilled with either of them at this point. I've become very disillusioned with my musical heroes to the point that I don't consider them heroes anymore. Since the late 60's Mick has cared only about one thing- his wallet. Keith lived a selfish, junkie lifestyle with a careless, callous, and reckless abandon that was inconsiderate of those around him for too many years (and may have inadvertently caused the death of one of his children. And smuggling drugs in your son's teddy bear. That's classy).

Eric Clapton is quite possibly racist, which is odd considering his love and friendship of guys like Freddy King and Muddy. His drunken remarks favoring a certain British politician were bad enough, the half-assed reasoning and excuse he gave for them in his book tell me he still doesn't quite get it. I get the impression he thinks blacks are ok as long as they are his musical idols and don't immigrate to England.

Chuck Berry films women pissing in the bathroom of his restaurant. I know he "settled" for financial reasons and to avoid a long and public trial, but if I was innocent, I'd fight that shit till I died.

About the only one I have respect for still is Pete Townshend. He seems to be the only one who walks it like he talks it, and admits he's been an egotistical, self-indulgent ass-hole rockstar. And before anything is said, I happen to believe his side of the whole child pornography mess he went through. And yes, I know he "settled" too, but there was evidence against him, he did go on some websites he should have avoided, and as a result was guilty. Like I said though, I believe his side of it, and to me he explained why he did what he did to a satisfactory and justifiable degree. In Chuck Berry's case, there ain't no excuse for filming women peeing other than being a freaking first-class perv. To me, there is a big difference between purposely putting cameras in a women's restroom, which is flat-out illegal, and stumbling across kiddie porn online. The latter is possible with little or no effort or forethought, the former takes a thought out and concerted effort. You don't "accidentally" install a camera anywhere.

The list goes on and on from there, unfortunately. The short answer though to the the original question would be Keith I guess. He seems harmless enough in his old age.

Boogie1969, how do you feel about Gary Glitter?

Dead heat --- Both carry a can of soul-putty in the back pocket ta fill in the flaws of the other

Glimmer Twins



ROCKMAN

Keith.

Mitch, I echo Erik Snow....blah....blah....blah...blah...blah

We're not in kindergarten here.

I don't wanna take 'em out of the package... I can't decide

Quote
mitchflorida
it is next to impossible to top Mick. And he makes it seem easier than it is. (Compare Mick to Bob Dylan . .. Dylan has about 35 songs that were made into hits by other groups because a lot of people don't care for Dylan's singing.)

That isnt because they're 'topping' Dylan - they're just more commercially accessible.

Quote
mitchflorida
In many ways, Mick Jagger is an underrated vocalist. I noticed that on American Idol this week. Only one of the 12 aspiring singers could even touch Mick's versions of his songs. That is the reason that most Rolling Stones songs aren't covered by other artists . . it is next to impossible to top Mick. And he makes it seem easier than it is. (Compare Mick to Bob Dylan . .. Dylan has about 35 songs that were made into hits by other groups because a lot of people don't care for Dylan's singing.)

Here is the one Stones song where I think the cover version might be as good as Mick'. Of course, they are both great treatments in their way . .

Actually i'm not sure if there is a group,apart from the Beatles obviously,who have been covered more than the Stones.Not that that reflects negatively on Micks singing at all,he's my favourite vocalist.Have a look at this link,which may well probably be incomplete:-[www.nzentgraf.de]

Quote
still ill
Actually i'm not sure if there is a group,apart from the Beatles obviously,who have been covered more than the Stones.

I can't speak for mitch of course, but perhaps he meant beatles cover tunes that became hits for other people. Tons and tons and tons of Beatles songs became hits for many huge artists of every generation over the decades. As for Stones covers that became hits, I can think of a few, but not nearly as many.

As for which Stone I like better - I've never met either of them, not even close. I think the two of them are more similar in finacial fan-milking pursuits than people here tend to voice. Both, now, live like demigods in their own cut off, secluded micro-societal realities. Living like this for decades unfortunately has made it appear that they are now removed them from the blues, creatively driveless, hungering for nothing. Ageing with only the best that money can buy them.

So my answer, as people, is neither.
Mick's always impressed me more onstage though, but I've only ever seen Vegas-era shows. I've never seen Keith actually lead the band with the riffs and sounds that make him who he is. Had I seen them back in 1972 or 1978 I may have felt different (and feel completely different about the band this day). I hope the new exile tracks are good, 'cause I'm nearly done with them. We're getting rid of our first-cd tracks soon. We're moving away from their sound even further, and we likey won't do a cover of theirs anytime soon.

[thepowergoats.com]