I like when musicians as a dramatic gesture get down on the stage floor. Keith likes to kneel down a lot and Mick used to do some kneeling and rolling back in the days(remember Midnight Rambler in the early 70's) but I don't think he did any of that during ABB. Is it a sign of Mick getting more "conservative" as far as stage moves go? I still love Mick stage presence,he was great at the R&RHOF 25th anniversary. Keep on rocking Mick!
Rock and Roll,
Mops

He rocked webster hall in '93. But I've not seen the acrobatics you speak of since 81-82 footage.

[thepowergoats.com]

His moves are all planned-out now.

Some of the shows from ABB he was a mad man. All over the stage NON STOP!! Example Hershey PA and Columbus Ohio. Mick is the greatest that's ever lived.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Mick is the greatest that's ever lived.

Only in a universe where James Brown never existed.

Live Licks tour he had so much energy on the last song , I got tired just watching him! lol

In a universe with or without James Brown, I still think Mick is the greatest that's ever lived...Inspired by Brown,but he created his own style...
What a great frontman!

You can see a Stones without Keith. Are you smoking crack? How aboout a Bob Dylan and His Band without Bob Dylan? Can you see that too?

Isn't Mick 66 years old? and he is not moving like he does 81-82?

he definitely tried to present a more dignified persona starting with Steel Wheels--no more rolling on the floor or yobbish behavior. But it's probably time to take it down another notch and not have to pump up the crowd continually.

mick keeps his shoulders perpendicular to his neck, the arm without the mic, he keeps the elbow perpendicular to the shoulder and flicks his wrist every other word, the hand with the mic either grasps it or flails wildly. All while he steps about as if wearing 6" stilettos.

OLDKR

Quote
oldkr
mick keeps his shoulders perpendicular to his neck, the arm without the mic, he keeps the elbow perpendicular to the shoulder and flicks his wrist every other word, the hand with the mic either grasps it or flails wildly.

yeah. he used to introduce new moves or have a somewhat different theme with each tour... but he's been doing the same set for a long time now.

a nice collection of quotes on the subject: [www.timeisonourside.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-09 16:02 by with sssoul.

Watch The Mick's stage moves from 05:20

Quote
71Tele
You can see a Stones without Keith. Are you smoking crack? How aboout a Bob Dylan and His Band without Bob Dylan? Can you see that too?

Your comparison is a fallacy. Keith was a background figure when the Stones started in fact to this very day the greatest year, as far as Stones popularity is concerned, for the Stones in the UK was 1964 (that's why the Stones still tend to play some more of their early R&B covers whenever they play the UK). Keith didn't play any significant role in those 1962 to 1964 (storm to the top) years more than any other background rhythm guitarist, this was Brians time and leadership, ofcourse during 1964 Andrew started to change that, but even so Richards first self written hit The Last Time (1965) was in fact based on a folklore song dating back to the US slavery time (and hence part of the public domain) called This Could Be The Last Time I Don't Know (check the Staple Singers version of this old song). And this might be a shock to you but it is NOT Keith playing that guitar tune (which made it so populair and a hit) on that song, it is Brian who came up with that tune and who played it (yes also on the record). But Andrew, the slick fox, quickly put it down as a Jagger Richard composition before any one could complain. And with good reason, he knew that it was gonna be a hit and that it would encourage the Glimmers to keep exploring making their own material, which it did with great results. Henceforth the pattern was set to put down any collective Stones song as a Jagger Richard composition (for example Honky Tonk was originally just a not very noteworthy country joke, untill Miller arranged and orchastrated it into what it has become today, yet it is not called a Miller,Jagger Richard composition is it?). But yes Keith became the riffmaster and wrote most of their greatest songs.......a long time ago (the last ten yrs he's only a mascotte). Jagger on the other hand was the voice and magnet attracting all attention straight from the first club gigs in 1962, and whilest Keith is only a mascotte on stage today it is Mick that is pumping up the audience and band, it is Mick's strange magnetism that attrackted 99% of all the todays Stonesfans to them in the first place, even most of today's Mick hating Keith lovers got in the first place interrested in the Stones after seeing Mick (only discovering Keith later, and you know it). You don't keep an armless guy in your football team to defend the goal, no matter what great keeper he was in the past.
Remember Syd Barrett? He was considered (as he was at the time the leader, singer and composer of) Pink Floyd. Like you claim today about Keith people at the time said Pink Floyd without Syd? Impossible! But Syd went out and in came Gilmour. Roger Waters rose to the occasion as Floyd's singer and composer and Pink came up with their greatest work ever (that silenced the critics) Yet also Waters left.And again; "what Pink floyd without singer composer Roger Waters, no way". But Pink Floyd came without Waters (Syd Barrett was allready gone remember) and released their new album A Momentary Lapse of Reason that went straight to the top of both US and UK charts. The same thing would happen with a Stones album without Keith (bearing in mind that Barrett and later Waters were much more crucial to Floyd than Keith ever was for the Stones).

He's much better in these latter days (TD from the VL ppv, OOC from Rio 98 and CTYL from Munich 03 as examples), though sometimes he overdoes it (Satisfaction from the superbowl show). I'd take his latter day moves over any previous tour, though there's some real nice ones from 69 and 72.

JumpingKentFlash

Totally disagree. Jagger used to have really cool moves in the past, but check out e.g his rather embarrassing stage antics on I'm Free from Shine A Light. Terrible!!!
Anyway, I prefer Keith's more subtle moves and posing during that song. By the way, those models on front row look fabulous.....

behroez oughtta get some new medication. Stones without Keef is
lika Beatles without Lennon and McCartney.

What do I like in Jagger's moves ?

No one ever moved on stage as /like he does.

My favorite period ?
69/76 .

1972 if I had the choice .





For the way he hands the microphone & moves his arm , perpendicular/high to his shoulder .......
This is so particular !

Some of the posters here must have already jumped to 2.22 ....



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

...has there been anyone better?...difficult to say.....do I think he needs a few new smoove moves???...maybe.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-08 22:17 by Rip This.

Check out towards the end of the opening number "Brown Sugar" on the Twickenham Licks DVD. He does a crazy mad dance in one spot that got a great reaction from the crowd. I remember the great feeling I got at the gig when he did it.

This was the first show after a couple of cancellations (due to him having throat problems or maybe flu symptoms, I can't quite remember) and it seemed like he wanted to show that he was back with a vengance.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-08 23:34 by vudicus.

LA75 clip is superb IMO. Everyone looks great and the sound is near perfect.

I love Mick and believe he is the best frontman ever. But since Steel Wheels, his moves have become way too exaggerated for me, too contrived. It almost seems that he is playing to a stadium crowd. (which, of course, he usually is) I would rather see him more subdued, less is more. However he does it, there is nobody like him.

Quote
behroez

Quote
71Tele
You can see a Stones without Keith. Are you smoking crack? How aboout a Bob Dylan and His Band without Bob Dylan? Can you see that too?

Your comparison is a fallacy. Keith was a background figure when the Stones started in fact to this very day the greatest year, as far as Stones popularity is concerned, for the Stones in the UK was 1964 (that's why the Stones still tend to play some more of their early R&B covers whenever they play the UK). Keith didn't play any significant role in those 1962 to 1964 (storm to the top) years more than any other background rhythm guitarist, this was Brians time and leadership, ofcourse during 1964 Andrew started to change that, but even so Richards first self written hit The Last Time (1965) was in fact based on a folklore song dating back to the US slavery time (and hence part of the public domain) called This Could Be The Last Time I Don't Know (check the Staple Singers version of this old song). And this might be a shock to you but it is NOT Keith playing that guitar tune (which made it so populair and a hit) on that song, it is Brian who came up with that tune and who played it (yes also on the record). But Andrew, the slick fox, quickly put it down as a Jagger Richard composition before any one could complain. And with good reason, he knew that it was gonna be a hit and that it would encourage the Glimmers to keep exploring making their own material, which it did with great results. Henceforth the pattern was set to put down any collective Stones song as a Jagger Richard composition (for example Honky Tonk was originally just a not very noteworthy country joke, untill Miller arranged and orchastrated it into what it has become today, yet it is not called a Miller,Jagger Richard composition is it?). But yes Keith became the riffmaster and wrote most of their greatest songs.......a long time ago (the last ten yrs he's only a mascotte). Jagger on the other hand was the voice and magnet attracting all attention straight from the first club gigs in 1962, and whilest Keith is only a mascotte on stage today it is Mick that is pumping up the audience and band, it is Mick's strange magnetism that attrackted 99% of all the todays Stonesfans to them in the first place, even most of today's Mick hating Keith lovers got in the first place interrested in the Stones after seeing Mick (only discovering Keith later, and you know it). You don't keep an armless guy in your football team to defend the goal, no matter what great keeper he was in the past.
Remember Syd Barrett? He was considered (as he was at the time the leader, singer and composer of) Pink Floyd. Like you claim today about Keith people at the time said Pink Floyd without Syd? Impossible! But Syd went out and in came Gilmour. Roger Waters rose to the occasion as Floyd's singer and composer and Pink came up with their greatest work ever (that silenced the critics) Yet also Waters left.And again; "what Pink floyd without singer composer Roger Waters, no way". But Pink Floyd came without Waters (Syd Barrett was allready gone remember) and released their new album A Momentary Lapse of Reason that went straight to the top of both US and UK charts. The same thing would happen with a Stones album without Keith (bearing in mind that Barrett and later Waters were much more crucial to Floyd than Keith ever was for the Stones).

There are so many flaws in your reasoning it's hard to know where to start. Just one thing: The comparison with Pink Floyd is bogus. The Floyds were still a minor band with their whole history in front of them when Syd left. The Stones have been around almost half a century and it is amply been demonstrated that the Jagger/Richards songwriting and production team is what is responsible for their entire sound and identity.

behroez: do not use this thread as a space where you can place your moronic attacks towards Mr Rock and Roll himself!!!

This is a threadabout Jagger's stage moves and it is not fair neither to him,
to us reasonable guys nor to you or Keef. Ya better go and start
a new thread to unwrap yer confused litanias.

And ya know damn well there is no Stones without Keith Richards.

I like the 78 US tour (the videos). Mick was really funny on stage, very relaxed, loose and cool. There is a video, I think it's in Memphis he wears a leather white jacket and he sings "sweet little sixteen" he really rocks on that one, he is wild.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Kinda miss the foot thingies

I would love to see Mick come out and just sing, just stand there and sing, at the mic, with the mic on a stand, without all the goofy faces, without all the hand flying about, and just sing. Not for the whole show mind you...

Quote
skipstone
I would love to see Mick come out and just sing, just stand there and sing, at the mic, with the mic on a stand, without all the goofy faces, without all the hand flying about, and just sing. Not for the whole show mind you...

Me to. When I look at my DVD with Stones I ask myself "Is he stupiedor what?"
It looks like.

DKsoulman says:
Me to. When I look at my DVD with Stones I ask myself "Is he stupiedor what?"
It looks like.

I don't think Mick is stupid for a minute. He is an entertainer who seems to react genuinely and physically to music. When I go to a Rock and Roll show that's what I expect to see; some crazy shit going on stage. But everybody is different and I respect that. For me the more stupido, the better!!
Rock and Roll,
Mops