What Mick Jagger has done with his Band in the last 50 years..well theres only one word for it.."Inspirational".Both Mick Jagger and Elvis Presley will go down in history as two of the greatest frontman of all time.But I think Mick is right out on his own when it comes to been the most inspirational and astute frontman of all time.

His band??? HMMMMMM. Well, I think it is really more him and Keith, and it seems like Keith was responsible for a lot more of the music than lore would have us believe.

in a critical history of the Stones Mick Jagger will be well remembered as a very clever business man first of all. He somehow kept the Stones alive as a successful commercial project/product after they died as a band somewhere in the mid 70s (Elvis on the other hand is remembered as a great singer, but as a very stupid person when it comes to his 'own' music and his business).

P.S.: The Stones being 'his' band might be one of Jaggers most favorite dreams, but it has only little to do with really (remember what - according the Keith's Life – happened when Mick called Charlie 'his' drummer)

Quote
slewan
...after they died as a band somewhere ...

...in the mid '80s more like it.

["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]

Well they are still a band. What a lot of folks don't often get, is when you are close friends and bond over music. Music is life. And it is for life. These guys are still a band. They always will be. Even after 100 years history is written again. They are a band. A legend.

Quote
whitem8
Well they are still a band. What a lot of folks don't often get, is when you are close friends and bond over music. Music is life. And it is for life. These guys are still a band. They always will be. Even after 100 years history is written again. They are a band. A legend.

right on whitem8,, this is the smartest most sensible post I have seen on this forum in along time,,,

Quote
northernale1

Quote
whitem8
Well they are still a band. What a lot of folks don't often get, is when you are close friends and bond over music. Music is life. And it is for life. These guys are still a band. They always will be. Even after 100 years history is written again. They are a band. A legend.

right on whitem8,, this is the smartest most sensible post I have seen on this forum in along time,,,

I disagree. I think thaT is exactly what has gone missing. True - there is much, very much, that no one can ever take away from them, but that is as far as it goes. I don't think that you can therefore assume that they have to keep playing music for the rest of their life. Yes, they are a legend, but an active performing band? Two different things.

Colonial, you inspire me to do something.

Quote
skipstone
Colonial, you inspire me to do something.

No, Skip, don't do it ! It ain't worth it !

Quote
whitem8
Well they are still a band.

They ARE? Last I knew it, bands play music, go on tour, usually on a quite regular basis ha ha ha ha ha...

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
skipstone
Colonial, you inspire me to do something.

No, Skip, don't do it ! It ain't worth it !

I'm still deciding. And thinking. About what that 'something' is going to be. Is it start a thread that what Keith has done with his Band is...Inspirational! or maybe instead of polluting iorr.org with silly threads like that to actually do something, like...go make a fire, paint my bathroom, clean my truck, tie my bootlaces better, listen to a Stones album minus all warhorses - that kind of thing...

Although, you gotta hand it to ol' Colonial boy, he IS entertaining.

Quote
MississippiBullfrog

Quote
slewan
...after they died as a band somewhere ...

...in the mid '80s more like it.

I meant as a relevant band. Isn't it a strange phenomenon that a band survives more than 30 years after their last significant contribution to music?

Now, this is inspirational:

Yeah what has Mick done?

2 1 2 0

Quote
colonial
What Mick Jagger has done with his Band in the last 50 years..well theres only one word for it.."Inspirational".Both Mick Jagger and Elvis Presley will go down in history as two of the greatest frontman of all time.But I think Mick is right out on his own when it comes to been the most inspirational and astute frontman of all time.

Mick, it will never be YOUR band.

Quote
MJG196

Quote
colonial
What Mick Jagger has done with his Band in the last 50 years..well theres only one word for it.."Inspirational".Both Mick Jagger and Elvis Presley will go down in history as two of the greatest frontman of all time.But I think Mick is right out on his own when it comes to been the most inspirational and astute frontman of all time.

Mick, it will never be YOUR band.

MJG196..The Band "The Rolling Stones" has got Mick Jaggers name written all over it,,of course its his Band everyone knows that.What ya' talk'n about its not his band..

Quote
colonial
The Band "The Rolling Stones" has got Mick Jaggers name written all over it,,of course its his Band everyone knows that.What ya' talk'n about its not his band..

I wonder what Freud would say about this.

[/quote]MJG196..The Band "The Rolling Stones" has got Mick Jaggers name written all over it,,of course its his Band everyone knows that.What ya' talk'n about its not his band..[/quote]

listen to any Jagger solo album and you'll see what's missing, i.e. that he is just a part of the Stones. His solo works have always sounded somehow castrated to me!

and for the rest of the discussion see:
[www.sebastiankruger.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 22:49 by slewan.

Quote
colonial
..The Band "The Rolling Stones" has got Mick Jaggers name written all over it,,of course its his Band everyone knows that.

The southern hemisphere has always had problems with making people see funny things. Like Colonial seeing it with Jagger's name written all over it...

Mick Jagger is but one element in the band that makes the Rolling Stones what they are. He is the front man and so was often seen as its public face, especially in the '60s and 70s. The other vital elements are Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, and Bill Wyman. It is/was these elements that really forged the Stones sound. Take away any one of these elements and you no longer have the Stones 'sound' so to say the Rolling Stones are Mick Jagger's band does little to credit all the members who contribute to making the band as distinctive as it was...

The southern hemisphere has always had problems with making people see funny things.

Yeah it sure does ..... What part of Tasmania are you from Skip?



ROCKMAN

Without Mick Jagger, there would not have been a Rolling Stones for at least the last 34 years, since Keith's bust in Toronto; it became very clear that if the Rolling Stones were to continue, someone had to take over...it sure wasn't Keith who basicly was held together in all ways possible by Mick. Was Keith once very creative? Without a doubt. Did Keith write some amazing riffs? Yup, no question? Would there still be a Rolling Stones if Keith had been the one solely in charge of the band? NO WAY ON EARTH!
And that doesn't mean Mick hasn't contributed musically to the Stones! He has been at least 1/2 of the creative juice/mojo. Simply put, however, if Mick had not taken over the reigns long ago, there would be no IORR to post this sort of comment on!

Quote
mickschix
Without Mick Jagger, there would not have been a Rolling Stones for at least the last 34 years, since Keith's bust in Toronto; it became very clear that if the Rolling Stones were to continue, someone had to take over...it sure wasn't Keith who basicly was held together in all ways possible by Mick. Was Keith once very creative? Without a doubt. Did Keith write some amazing riffs? Yup, no question? Would there still be a Rolling Stones if Keith had been the one solely in charge of the band? NO WAY ON EARTH!
And that doesn't mean Mick hasn't contributed musically to the Stones! He has been at least 1/2 of the creative juice/mojo. Simply put, however, if Mick had not taken over the reigns long ago, there would be no IORR to post this sort of comment on!

I completely agree with that, in fact reading between the lines (As that's all one can do from a distance) I would say if it hadn't been for Mick Jagger as Mickschix says holding it togethor in the late 70's, Keith Richards would either be dead, in prison or at best slumming it around the London blues circuit in the same way as Steve Marriott did....pretty much broke and forgotten.....I just put his pathetic attitude towards Mick down to brain damage due to years of drug abuse and maybe his fall in Fiji......The Stones were reborn in '89 with the huge productions and backing singers and their longevity since then has been down to Mick, his baby, people who think that 'Mixed Emotions' reads as 'Mick's demotion' are, well.... off it... Mick went on his much critisized solo tour in '88 and came back with ideas and of course Lisa Fischer & Bernhard Fowler, the rest as they say......The main input I remember from Keith is constant bellyaching about yellow tights, cherry pickers, inflatables and jumbotrons - simply not understanding (even though he's in the middle of it) that if you want the attention of a big world...you've got to put on a big show........if you want to play your blues in a corner ...go and do that, that's O.K. but perhaps you could put all the cash you've earned through Mick's misguided ways in an honesty box on the way out......



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-17 01:31 by EddieByword.

no rolling stones maybe,,,

but keith still had the superior solo carrier,,

or atleast life out side the stones through out the 80s,, keiths music still lives,, micks, i cant find a person who plays micks solo stuff and admits it,

Quote
northernale1
no rolling stones maybe,,,

but keith still had the superior solo carrier,,

or atleast life out side the stones through out the 80s,, keiths music still lives,, micks, i cant find a person who plays micks solo stuff and admits it,

Well, you found one now......with the exception of a couple of tracks off his last album I reaally like Micks's solo stuff, ...it's alive, humorous,mixing traditional styles with completey unique to Jagger perspective & sounds, not afraid to try new things......Keith's on the other hand although one has to acknowledge a certain solidity is pretty moribund generally.....to me the test is ...what makes me want to dance....Mick's music wins hands down over Keiths....'Could have stood you up' is about the only danceable Keith song I can think of..............maybe 'Big Enough' and if it wasn't for the lyrics possibly a smooch out of 'Locked Away'.........nah.. Keith's just too tied down for my liking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-17 02:37 by EddieByword.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
northernale1
no rolling stones maybe,,,

but keith still had the superior solo carrier,,

or atleast life out side the stones through out the 80s,, keiths music still lives,, micks, i cant find a person who plays micks solo stuff and admits it,

Well, you found one now......with the exception of a couple of tracks off his last album I reaally like Micks's solo stuff, ...it's alive, humorous,mixing traditional styles with completey unique to Jagger perspective & sounds, not afraid to try new things......Keith's on the other hand although one has to acknowledge a certain solidity is pretty moribund generally.....to me the test is ...what makes me want to dance....Mick's music wins hands down over Keiths....'Could have stood you up' is about the only danceable Keith song I can think..............maybe 'Big Enough' and if it wasn't for the lyrics possibly a smooch out of 'Locked Away'.........nah.. Keith's just too tied down for my liking.

to each is own,, but i have 2 left feet so i dont dance,, nor do i listen to dance music,,,

but can i listen to good ole rock and roll.. all night and day baby,,

would i sooner listen to someone who stays true to there roots,, sure would,,,

do i think Mick can be a good rock and roller,, sure do,, when he is not struck on what the teenie boppers are listening too,,

so when it gets down to it ,, me personally i would sooner see keith on stage with willie nelson,, then mick on stage with justin timberlake

Mick is a true artist, he can do anything and he does. Listen to Wandering Spirit, it is pure rock and roll. He did the Blues album with the Red Devils. He's been there and done that oh and by the way he has a little side band called the Stones.

He is a class act, there will never be anyone like him. Keith on the other hand is a cartoon, a caricature of of himself. He does whatever he can to perpetuate his image and be whatever his fans want him to be.

I hate the opinion that what ever rocks is from Keith and whatever sucks is from Mick. No Mick no Stones, but Mick can not only copy the Stones but can make a better album that they could with WS.

BTW I've been listening to WS a lot lately, what a great album, great lyrics but for a few and great tunes.

but if no keith richards, no rolling stones.it is their band IMO.

Quote
northernale1

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
northernale1
no rolling stones maybe,,,

but keith still had the superior solo carrier,,

or atleast life out side the stones through out the 80s,, keiths music still lives,, micks, i cant find a person who plays micks solo stuff and admits it,

Well, you found one now......with the exception of a couple of tracks off his last album I reaally like Micks's solo stuff, ...it's alive, humorous,mixing traditional styles with completey unique to Jagger perspective & sounds, not afraid to try new things......Keith's on the other hand although one has to acknowledge a certain solidity is pretty moribund generally.....to me the test is ...what makes me want to dance....Mick's music wins hands down over Keiths....'Could have stood you up' is about the only danceable Keith song I can think..............maybe 'Big Enough' and if it wasn't for the lyrics possibly a smooch out of 'Locked Away'.........nah.. Keith's just too tied down for my liking.

to each is own,, but i have 2 left feet so i dont dance,, nor do i listen to dance music,,,

but can i listen to good ole rock and roll.. all night and day baby,,

would i sooner listen to someone who stays true to there roots,, sure would,,,

do i think Mick can be a good rock and roller,, sure do,, when he is not struck on what the teenie boppers are listening too,,

so when it gets down to it ,, me personally i would sooner see keith on stage with willie nelson,, then mick on stage with justin timberlake

As you say, each to his own..don't get me wrong though, Keith solo is still in my top 15 all time favourites and I do love me Rock'n'Roll....just my left ear prefers Miss you, Out of Control, Rainfall down and my right J.J. Flash, SFM & Happy etc........I guess that's why I love the Stones togethor best as they cater for both ears at the same time..........><

I don't really get the 'true to your roots' thing though to be honest, I mean just because you're weaned on the blues doesn't mean you should reject anything other than that that you come across in life, well , just on principle anyway, I would have thought it more important to be true to what you like whether that's something you hear early on in life or whenever..........I mean I'm 50 and thanks to my stepson who plays sax in an orchestra I've just discovered 'Blue Grass'....there was a Bluegrass band playing support to a 50 piece orchestra (Xmas concert) and I really got into it....strange setup I know but somehow it worked..( + a comedian). They say you can't teach an old dog...etc,,etc...but I'm definitely going to check more of that out and add another dimension to my collection....I've got to say though I'm not keen on Mr Timberlake either Although I thought Mick's effort with Lenny Kravitz was pretty hot and the video was right on the music and so right off the dial so to speak, absolutely mad blistering giutar rock with matching vid. Super Ex...Even the BBC presenters who normally slag Mick off something rotten went for that............I guess I just say never say never.....Cheers then, Eddie

Quote
coffeepotman
Mick is a true artist, he can do anything and he does. Listen to Wandering Spirit, it is pure rock and roll. He did the Blues album with the Red Devils. He's been there and done that oh and by the way he has a little side band called the Stones.

He is a class act, there will never be anyone like him. Keith on the other hand is a cartoon, a caricature of of himself. He does whatever he can to perpetuate his image and be whatever his fans want him to be.

I hate the opinion that what ever rocks is from Keith and whatever sucks is from Mick. No Mick no Stones, but Mick can not only copy the Stones but can make a better album that they could with WS.

BTW I've been listening to WS a lot lately, what a great album, great lyrics but for a few and great tunes.

There you go northernale1 (That wouldn't be the no nonsense ale would it ?) Two Mick music players in one night....plus I wouldn't mind betting Mickschix is a fan also......so that would be three...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-17 03:43 by EddieByword.