Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
you like to watch him when he's in the shower?

Great question man, really cool.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Mick WAS atrocious to watch on that tour. The epitomy of trying too hard. I thought he did much better in the 90's. I actually thought, oddly enough, he really found his groove again on the last 2 tours. Of course he utilized a dance instructor this century (along with a vocal coach), so there's the result.

It's fantastic that we've moved from being critics about the music to being critics about MJ's dancing.

Through the years that was the one thing that everyone, even Nureyev pointed out was what MJ was an excellent dancer.

Luckily we know better.

nothing says rock and roll like a dance instructor! i wonder if it's the same one that the Backstreet Boys used.

It's all rather depressing isn't it? I think that for the Stones to mature that they must GET OVER the need to present a stage "show" that does anything but emphasize THE MUSIC. A 60+ year old dancing fool never did it for me. Sit down, talk about the songs, belt it out but leave the over done stage moves to the teenagers who are in new bands and are actually expressing themselves with the dancing bit. At this point it is ALL about the music, nothing else. Good thing the music is so good that it stands on it's own merit. peace.

Quote
Naturalust
At this point it is ALL about the spectacle, nothing else.

i agree with this....

To me, ever since Steel Wheels Mick's always looked "forced" into all the dancing, posing and moving around than he ever did in the past. The last 3 tours were him just trying to prove to the audience he was 60-whatever and still able to run around and jump and jive better than anyone else in the stadium. It seemed in the past, he just didn't care. He moved when he felt like it...jumped around and posed very sporadically. He was more of a singer. Lately, the singing has taken a back seat to the aerobic workout he feels he has to do at every show.

Quote
Naturalust
It's all rather depressing isn't it? I think that for the Stones to mature that they must GET OVER the need to present a stage "show" that does anything but emphasize THE MUSIC. A 60+ year old dancing fool never did it for me. Sit down, talk about the songs, belt it out but leave the over done stage moves to the teenagers who are in new bands and are actually expressing themselves with the dancing bit. At this point it is ALL about the music, nothing else. Good thing the music is so good that it stands on it's own merit. peace.

topics such as this one make me wonder what the famous IORR member Turd would have to say
Can I Get a Witness

The one great thing about the Imax 'film' is that they actually hold a shot. I can't stand most of the editing these days. They cut to a new camera every half second.

thanks to Mick jagger you wrote in this forum. PELOTUDO"""!!!

The MUSIC on At The Max is pretty great.

Music? Oh, yeah, that.

Quote
Naturalust
It's all rather depressing isn't it? I think that for the Stones to mature that they must GET OVER the need to present a stage "show" that does anything but emphasize THE MUSIC. A 60+ year old dancing fool never did it for me. Sit down, talk about the songs, belt it out but leave the over done stage moves to the teenagers who are in new bands and are actually expressing themselves with the dancing bit. At this point it is ALL about the music, nothing else. Good thing the music is so good that it stands on it's own merit. peace.

What a load of bullocks.
How it would be nice if Mick Jagger would be somebody else not himself. In that case the Stones would be just perfect
This is so stupid that even funny.

I prefer stadium Jagger with a lot of room to move. I was really missing this when watching the "Ladies & Gentlemen" shows from 1972.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Naturalust
It's all rather depressing isn't it? I think that for the Stones to mature that they must GET OVER the need to present a stage "show" that does anything but emphasize THE MUSIC. A 60+ year old dancing fool never did it for me. Sit down, talk about the songs, belt it out but leave the over done stage moves to the teenagers who are in new bands and are actually expressing themselves with the dancing bit. At this point it is ALL about the music, nothing else. Good thing the music is so good that it stands on it's own merit. peace.

What a load of bullocks.
How it would be nice if Mick Jagger would be somebody else not himself. In that case the Stones would be just perfect
This is so stupid that even funny.

Well, Mary, maybe. However, I have had the thought that Mick, in his effort to be professional (a commendable thing, of course), is no longer being his natural self. Ironically, when he was less professional and more natural (no voice coach or dance coach and little rehearsing or choreography), I liked him more. Still a fan -- still can't name anyone more fun to watch, really, but that's my perspective...

every tour has its own moves. I'm glad that pose / hand over his face thing was left out of his Repertoire after SW.

Let me join the Fantasizers on board generally.

I can envision Jagger sobbing his heart out at some of these comments and others pounded into so many IORR threads. And Mick mutters: "To think those bastards are still babbling about 'Are the Stones gonna tour in 2012?"

"Those...those...hypocrites."

For a moment I thought thread might deal with this...



...obviously I was wrong.

Gravity Boy, you've touched on a strange paradox.
Having fallen in love with the Stones circa 79, all I had, in the pre-video/cable days...was, first, the crazy, raw performance on SNL, then the gloried spector of Jagger the Juggernaut, the Nureyev of Rock and Roll, the Dark Prince that I read about in old mags, the cool videos from SG and ER and Gimme Shelter on a small B&W TV in the spring of 1980 etc.... When I was finally able to actually watch Let's Spend the Night, it was a big WTF is he doing?
I've never been able to watch that movie in mixed (with non-Stones fans) company. It's painful. I think it started in 81, with the Start Me Up Aerobicizing with the Stones video clip.
Before, like Justin said, Jagger used to seem to be driven by the music, he was possessed by some rhythmic demon and then stood and sang the slow songs. That all went out the window in 81.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-14 23:23 by stupidguy2.

Quote
shortfatfanny
For a moment I thought thread might deal with this...



...obviously I was wrong.

is this a shot of mick after a twinkie binge?

its downright bizarre how many people just flat out dislike mick jagger but like the stones.
i cant imagine how someone could even try to separate the two in their minds but many here seem to do it.

mick was great onstage on every tour he's ever done with the stones.his stage act is such a big part of the band ....are you guys really sure you like the stones that much or are you just into classic rock and you ended up here cause they're sort of the last band standing? i'm just asking,are they your 3rd or 4th favorite band maybe?

I wonder too how many people could sing the same songs one hundred gazillion times and still find freshness in them?

Pop stars have been known to change almost every note in a hit song after performing it for years. Mick hit upon these aerobic dance routines for a number of
reasons, not the least of which, imo, it gives him something to think about while singing other than the notes. It also seems to entertain quite a lot of the fans, especially in larger venues.

One reason I prefer smaller venues, when I can get in, is that it keeps the band in a tighter, more confined area and brings back the focus to the music.

In general, whatever works for Mick is quite alright with me.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
spsimmons
I always assumed Mick was posing so much because it was being filmed. Those HUGE IMAX cameras were in his face - he probably felt like he had to play to the camera. It doesn't seem like the IMAX concert is really a concert at all. It seems to me like most of the time they are playing on the stage to an empty stadium. I think there are a few crowd shots, but looks to me like they were performing for the cameras only.

that's true - it was shot after the actual concert was given...and just for the expensive IMAX cameras....

Not sure this is accurate. Didn't they only redo a song or two in an empty stadium? I think 2000 Light Years was one of the numbers they had to do this for. I met a bunch of the camera men a few weeks after the taping and they did not allude to the whole show being taped in an empty stadium. In fact, they attended the tour-wrap party after the last Wembley show.

I always wondered whether Keith's infected finger, that postponed the Wembley shows earlier that Summer, was made up to reschedule around the Imax people's availability for filming?

i could be wrong, but if not the entire show...a good part of it...certainly more than a song or two....

Quote
angee
Pop stars have been known to change almost every note in a hit song after performing it for years. Mick hit upon these aerobic dance routines for a number of
reasons, not the least of which, imo, it gives him something to think about while singing other than the notes. It also seems to entertain quite a lot of the fans, especially in larger venues.

I was born in 1984...wasn't a fan until 1998...so I can't really refernece any life experience but...was Mick always known for the crazy dancing? I mean, did critics and music reviews always make it a point to talk about Mick's dancing at shows ad nauseam back in the early days? Was that always the focus?

For every tour I've witnessed (and attended) since 1999---every single review has made it a point to mention Mick's moves...just on and on about how much he ran, jumped or danced his way through the show. But of course by the time I was a fan--Mick was significantly older and it actually was a big deal that he moved around so much. But when did Mick become a parody of himself? Was it always there even in the 70's? Did it come second to the music...a footnote even?

The media today has built a bulletproof image of who Mick apparently is: a near70 year old grandfather who prances, dances and jumps around a stage for 2 hours better than anyone younger than him can. This expectation is waiting for Mick every time he sets his foot on stage. If I were him, I'd be pissed, thiking..."hey, when the hell did this happen? I didn't sign up for this." Mick now has to prove himself every night...try to live up to their expectations. It's too late now...he can't just shut it off....it's almost like a curse.

He should've stopped doing this crap 3 tours ago. He's in his 60's...he doesn't have to go out there and prove himself every night and dance while people throw money at him. Sad to say, but I think there's some integrity being lost there.

Yes, people have been commenting in various ways, positive, negative and humorous for decades now on Mick's stage moves. Richard Belzer for one use to do a little thing about it in his stand-up act back in the late 70's/early 80's.

Mick warned you all early on "Had to dance."

He likes performing...enjoys the challenge.

Quote
GravityBoy
We have "Stones At The Max" on Virgin TV On Demand at the moment.

So I watched it, most of it with gritted teeth.

At what point in his career did Mick become so unwatchable?

I just can't stand those silly poses he strikes every few seconds, normally involving a spread hand over his face. He's obviously had some coaching from someone.

Sing a line, stride somewhere, sing some more, stride, pose.

When did he lose his natural stage grace?

And he never looks like he's enjoying what he's doing, it's his business face (in a bad sense).

Sad, sad, sad.

it's called vegas mick, no spontaneity at all.

1978 plasric attire. Awful.

Quote
bustedtrousers
Yes, people have been commenting in various ways, positive, negative and humorous for decades now on Mick's stage moves. Richard Belzer for one use to do a little thing about it in his stand-up act back in the late 70's/early 80's.

Yes, plus I remember that SNL (?) bit that Al Franken did where he spoofed Mick but that was in 81/82 and that goes perfectly with the time period we all feel things went bad for Mick. Didn't know it was just as a big deal before then say in the late 60's and 70's.

Quote
Justin

Quote
bustedtrousers
Yes, people have been commenting in various ways, positive, negative and humorous for decades now on Mick's stage moves. Richard Belzer for one use to do a little thing about it in his stand-up act back in the late 70's/early 80's.

Yes, plus I remember that SNL (?) bit that Al Franken did where he spoofed Mick but that was in 81/82 and that goes perfectly with the time period we all feel things went bad for Mick. Didn't know it was just as a big deal before then say in the late 60's and 70's.

The impersonations seemed to have gotten more parody-esque post-81. People like Belzer and others had always done that rooster thing...but that has always been a signature Mick move, kind of spastic and it was still cool because it seemed unforced, just quirky and rock and roll, like someone who loved to dance but was kind of weirdly unrythmic, but still funky in his own way.
But the aerobics/Flashdance craze in the 80s seemed make an unfortunate impression on Mick. He started to think he was actually a dancer, as opposed to a rock and roll front man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-15 02:25 by stupidguy2.