Tell Me :
Talk
only 'in the 70's!
I love the way the Stones approached and reflected their doings of the last few yaers in their 'official' collections: THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY; MADE IN THE SHADE; SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES... Cool titles. Man, those guys were able to not take themselves too seriously in the business. Love that attitude!
- Doxa
Well...he's a year younger than my mother.
I can't imagine my mother running around on stage for 2 hours, singing, punching the air.
Some will say that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. I disagree...if he can still do it, and wants to, then do it.
Mick at his peak was very much unique, treaclefingers, i'll give you that, and pretty charming too, back in the very early days, when his movements had a freshness, and a naivety about them too. The word natural, i feel really is the key, to understanding what made Mick so truly great back in the sixties and seventies. Mick truly had a wonderfully suited physique for dancing, and also a physical eloquence in the way he actually moved, when he danced. Mick was perfectly in sinc with music back then, and very much complimenting in a physical way, very much what was aurally/musically being heard by the audience. I think Jagger did lose a little of the naivety from the 64-65 period as he entered the latter half of the sixties, and more of a blatant sexual quality came into his movements/dancing style, yet spontaneity always seemed pretty much his forte, and pretty much whatever i have seen him try, from that period, seemed to work brilliantly. The first time i really noticed him really working outside of the context of the music, in terms of him merely for creating a spectacle for himself, was certain moments on the 78 tour. That's when i feel a degree of excess was creeping into his movements, and very much outside the context of what the group were playing. However, it is really in the more recent years where his movements have been becoming ever more forced, that a real issue with Mick's dancing has come into play. Mick seems like he's completely abandoned the style of his own moves from earlier years. It is true, his visual physique hasn't really changed at all over the years, in terms of his weight, and from a distance he does seem pretty ageless. However, i believe the illusion is pretty much diminished when it comes to actually watching Mick attempt to dance. His movements, tend to lack any degree of sincerity, and really don't compliment the music too well, either. My feelings in part are one of two things : When Jagger began to lose his natural ability, it was replaced by a more contrived professional approach (by acquiring dance teachers etc). However, from another perspective, perhaps having dance lessons, may actually have quashed any of the existing natural tendences out of his dancing, too. Jagger just doesn't seem to move with any degree of grace or eloquence these days. Subtelty seems so very much missing, and Jagger just doesn't seem very flexible in a physical sense these days, either. He's just putting on a spectacle, but it's all pretty meaningless, ultimately. Mick would have been far more amiable, if he wasn't so vain. Another reason, namely - Michael Jackson - may also have had a bearing on this change of emphasis from Mick. In the eighties Mick saw Michael as competition, and he desperately wanted to emulate Michael's commercial success, and maybe he felt the slickness of Michael's visual performance was the way to go. However, in reality he and Michael's approaches to dancing were from two very different perspectives. Michael was always pure showbiz, whereas Mick was always so much more earthy, and as i have said previously - spontaneous.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-23 06:49 by Edward Twining.
I think some people on this board overanalysing.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
LOL Max. You are sharp
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
But I like it!
- Doxa
I don't disagree with any of your observations. I would maintain that MJ is STILL a better watch, than any other stage performer.
In addition, I would say that it would be natural after 30+ years in the biz to want to evolve, so if he's tried to improve himself since the 80s, I say good for him.
Additionally, your comment about naivete is interesting, because even you will acknowledge that was lost, or evolved by the late 60s. Of course it would...and thankfully it did.
He would look like a complete idiot if he danced the way he did in 1965...times changed, he changed and he's still the best. Any further dissection of his dancing IMHO is ridiculous because he's almost 70!
Does Tina or James Brown or any other singer with an actual 'stage presence' go through the same kind of critical analysis?
I think it's kind of funny how we 'eat our own' on this board. Classic, subjugation of others to make ourselves feel better.
It would be impossible, at that age, (certainly any age after 40), to have a physique like that without a strict exercise regime. Whether he's running or not, he is doing aerobic exercise and weight training.
Obviously from obesity rates, all ages are affected, the average person is 20 lbs. heavier than 20 years ago, I think it's up to the individual.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-23 19:48 by BroomWagon.
If zee Dear Doctor asked me..
"Max, what does zee picture make you think of?"
I would reply....
"Dear Doctor, it reminds me of BIG CITY NIGHTS!!"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-23 22:31 by Max'sKansasCity.
I stand corrected...mucho exercise AND Jenny Craig!
The problem isn't that Jagger can't perform like he did when he was 28, it's that he's trying to. While it's impressive that he still runs 5 miles a day, has a 26 inch waist, is dating a woman significantly younger than himself etc etc, these things only have relevance to the 'spectacle' of the Stones, not their music.
Keith, on the other hand, has already been overanalysed on the 'When did keith start acting like a clown onstage' thread; probably best to vent your spleen about him on there....
Really????!!!!!
Jagger never danced in 65, the way he dances now, treaclefingers. It was much more in context with the music as a whole, and the spectacle was actually that much smaller. matsumoto33 is spot on in his analysis. I don't know why Jagger can't let his vanity rest for a while, and that would perhaps give him an opportunity to truly concentrate on the music. Yes, he can perhaps shake a leg here, or turn his head there, or use his hands as a form of expressing the music through his being, but the circus act is something that's unbecoming for a man approaching seventy. Musical sincerity would be that much more amiable in my opinion.
Well we're just going to differ...I 'grew up' with the modern Mick, so my viewing sensibilities don't seem to have been scarred in the way yours have. I think there are merits to all the eras.
Does everything he does on stage work? No. Does that diminish him as a performer, or his performances...IMHO, not really. At least he is making it a show. I understand what your saying about the music, but if the music was THE ONLY important thing, I could just listen to it at home. I go to the show for the whole enchilada as they say....and even as a 70 year old, he delivers consistently.
We can disagree...but I think you're far too harsh in your criticism.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: December 21, 2011 01:52
Ok, I'll give you that one, Treacle...just a tad too old for LAD! Mick NEVER sucks!
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: December 21, 2011 04:07
Mick sucked in 81...... and spat out the satisfied lot of 'em one by one ....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 21, 2011 04:14
Quote
mickschix
Ok, I'll give you that one, Treacle...just a tad too old for LAD! Mick NEVER sucks!
only 'in the 70's!
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 21, 2011 11:18
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
mickschix
Ok, I'll give you that one, Treacle...just a tad too old for LAD! Mick NEVER sucks!
only 'in the 70's!
I love the way the Stones approached and reflected their doings of the last few yaers in their 'official' collections: THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY; MADE IN THE SHADE; SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES... Cool titles. Man, those guys were able to not take themselves too seriously in the business. Love that attitude!
- Doxa
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 22, 2011 23:09
It really is that vanity element within Mick, which is just so terribly off putting. When remarks are made with regards to Mick appearing unwatchable on stage, the heart of the matter is really the fact that Mick just finds it so hard to just let go, and relax, and not feel he has to keep proving himself. Yes, of course i am all in favour of him aspiring to be the very best singer he can, and perhaps in being so, extending that a little to his physical prowess on stage, but he really does seem to take it to an extreme. Those hand/arm gestures, and especially that pointing and jabbing style, i find pretty cringe inducing, and whether it is just as a result of him not really possessing those natural physical attributes from his youth any longer, and the arm movements are just a way of trying to make up for what he's lost, is actually highly debateable. Mick, even when his movements became much bigger, and more exaggerated, back in 81, never really proved as embarrassing as he does now, because he still seemed to possess a degree of naturalness within his movements..
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 22, 2011 23:17
mick in all his 'unnaturalness' is still a far better watch than any other entertainer.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: December 22, 2011 23:29
Well, if he reads all of these critiques, it will be interesting to see what he does in terms of movements next year....if there IS a 5oth Tour. If you go back to '72, he was not using " jabbing" moves as much as punches straight out and in '75 these moves smoothed out a bit into more fluid movements, like karate moves. In '78 he was defiant, so the movements appeared angry to me. A lot of you really hated the '81 tour and the constant running and the cherry picker...I liked it more than the '78 attitude. Steel Wheels was just a huge production all around with a very short hair cut and less jabbing movements. The 90's I loved, especially No Security. The " exaggerated " moves described by Edward became a bit more pronounced after 2002-03. I think Edward is exaggerating quite a bit but everyone's perceptions are different. I still find 95% of Mick's movements quite natural...hey, "he moves like Jagger", what else can you say??
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 22, 2011 23:41
Quote
mickschix
Well, if he reads all of these critiques, it will be interesting to see what he does in terms of movements next year....if there IS a 5oth Tour. If you go back to '72, he was not using " jabbing" moves as much as punches straight out and in '75 these moves smoothed out a bit into more fluid movements, like karate moves. In '78 he was defiant, so the movements appeared angry to me. A lot of you really hated the '81 tour and the constant running and the cherry picker...I liked it more than the '78 attitude. Steel Wheels was just a huge production all around with a very short hair cut and less jabbing movements. The 90's I loved, especially No Security. The " exaggerated " moves described by Edward became a bit more pronounced after 2002-03. I think Edward is exaggerating quite a bit but everyone's perceptions are different. I still find 95% of Mick's movements quite natural...hey, "he moves like Jagger", what else can you say??
Well...he's a year younger than my mother.
I can't imagine my mother running around on stage for 2 hours, singing, punching the air.
Some will say that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. I disagree...if he can still do it, and wants to, then do it.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 22, 2011 23:55
Quote
treaclefingers
mick in all his 'unnaturalness' is still a far better watch than any other entertainer.
Mick at his peak was very much unique, treaclefingers, i'll give you that, and pretty charming too, back in the very early days, when his movements had a freshness, and a naivety about them too. The word natural, i feel really is the key, to understanding what made Mick so truly great back in the sixties and seventies. Mick truly had a wonderfully suited physique for dancing, and also a physical eloquence in the way he actually moved, when he danced. Mick was perfectly in sinc with music back then, and very much complimenting in a physical way, very much what was aurally/musically being heard by the audience. I think Jagger did lose a little of the naivety from the 64-65 period as he entered the latter half of the sixties, and more of a blatant sexual quality came into his movements/dancing style, yet spontaneity always seemed pretty much his forte, and pretty much whatever i have seen him try, from that period, seemed to work brilliantly. The first time i really noticed him really working outside of the context of the music, in terms of him merely for creating a spectacle for himself, was certain moments on the 78 tour. That's when i feel a degree of excess was creeping into his movements, and very much outside the context of what the group were playing. However, it is really in the more recent years where his movements have been becoming ever more forced, that a real issue with Mick's dancing has come into play. Mick seems like he's completely abandoned the style of his own moves from earlier years. It is true, his visual physique hasn't really changed at all over the years, in terms of his weight, and from a distance he does seem pretty ageless. However, i believe the illusion is pretty much diminished when it comes to actually watching Mick attempt to dance. His movements, tend to lack any degree of sincerity, and really don't compliment the music too well, either. My feelings in part are one of two things : When Jagger began to lose his natural ability, it was replaced by a more contrived professional approach (by acquiring dance teachers etc). However, from another perspective, perhaps having dance lessons, may actually have quashed any of the existing natural tendences out of his dancing, too. Jagger just doesn't seem to move with any degree of grace or eloquence these days. Subtelty seems so very much missing, and Jagger just doesn't seem very flexible in a physical sense these days, either. He's just putting on a spectacle, but it's all pretty meaningless, ultimately. Mick would have been far more amiable, if he wasn't so vain. Another reason, namely - Michael Jackson - may also have had a bearing on this change of emphasis from Mick. In the eighties Mick saw Michael as competition, and he desperately wanted to emulate Michael's commercial success, and maybe he felt the slickness of Michael's visual performance was the way to go. However, in reality he and Michael's approaches to dancing were from two very different perspectives. Michael was always pure showbiz, whereas Mick was always so much more earthy, and as i have said previously - spontaneous.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-23 06:49 by Edward Twining.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: December 23, 2011 02:25
Amen, TREACLE and he does it better than all the rest so why not indeed!
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
harlem shuffle
()
Date: December 23, 2011 10:09
I think some people on this board overanalysing Jagger.
He is 68 years now,do you really think he can sing and act like the old days?
What about some overanalysing for Keith.
I could be dreadful
He is 68 years now,do you really think he can sing and act like the old days?
What about some overanalysing for Keith.
I could be dreadful
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: December 23, 2011 11:16
Quote
harlem shuffle
I think some people on this board overanalysing Jagger.
I think some people on this board overanalysing.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: December 23, 2011 11:20
I O R R
Its Overanalyzing Rockn Roll
Its Overanalyzing Rockn Roll
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: December 23, 2011 13:25
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I O R R
Its Overanalyzing Rockn Roll
LOL Max. You are sharp
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 23, 2011 14:50
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I O R R
Its Overanalyzing Rockn Roll
But I like it!
- Doxa
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: December 23, 2011 15:09
Cheers Doxa and Rolling Hansie 
CHEERS
CHEERS
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: December 23, 2011 16:42
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I O R R
Its Overanalyzing Rockn Roll
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 23, 2011 16:45
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
treaclefingers
mick in all his 'unnaturalness' is still a far better watch than any other entertainer.
Mick at his peak was very much unique, treaclefingers, i'll give you that, and pretty charming too, back in the very early days, when his movements had a freshness, and a naivety about them too. The word natural, i feel really is the key, to understanding what made Mick so truly great back in the sixties and seventies. Mick truly had a wonderfully suited physique for dancing, and also a physical eloquence in the way he actually moved, when he danced. Mick was perfectly in sinc with music back then, and very much complimenting in a physical way, very much what was aurally/musically being heard by the audience. I think Jagger did lose a little of the naivety from the 64-65 period as he entered the latter half of the sixties, and more of a blatant sexual quality came into his movements/dancing style, yet spontaneity always seemed pretty much his forte, and pretty much whatever i have seen him try, from that period, seemed to work brilliantly. The first time i really noticed him really working outside of the context of the music, in terms of him merely for creating a spectacle for himself, was certain moments on the 78 tour. That's when i feel a degree of excess was creeping into his movements, and very much outside the context of what the group were playing. However, it is really in the more recent years where his movements have been becoming ever more forced, that a real issue with Mick's dancing has come into play. Mick seems like he's completely abandoned the style of his own moves from earlier years. It is true, his visual physique hasn't really changed at all over the years, in terms of his weight, and from a distance he does seem pretty ageless. However, i believe the illusion is pretty much diminished when it comes to actually watching Mick attempt to dance. His movements, tend to lack any degree of sincerity, and really don't compliment the music too well, either. My feelings in part are one of two things : When Jagger began to lose his natural ability, it was replaced by a more contrived professional approach (by acquiring dance teachers etc). However, from another perspective, perhaps having dance lessons, may actually have quashed any of the existing natural tendences out of his dancing, too. Jagger just doesn't seem to move with any degree of grace or eloquence these days. Subtelty seems so very much missing, and Jagger just doesn't seem very flexible in a physical sense these days, either. He's just putting on a spectacle, but it's all pretty meaningless, ultimately. Mick would have been far more amiable, if he wasn't so vain. Another reason, namely - Michael Jackson - may also have had a bearing on this change of emphasis from Mick. In the eighties Mick saw Michael as competition, and he desperately wanted to emulate Michael's commercial success, and maybe he felt the slickness of Michael's visual performance was the way to go. However, in reality he and Michael's approaches to dancing were from two very different perspectives. Michael was always pure showbiz, whereas Mick was always so much more earthy, and as i have said previously - spontaneous.
I don't disagree with any of your observations. I would maintain that MJ is STILL a better watch, than any other stage performer.
In addition, I would say that it would be natural after 30+ years in the biz to want to evolve, so if he's tried to improve himself since the 80s, I say good for him.
Additionally, your comment about naivete is interesting, because even you will acknowledge that was lost, or evolved by the late 60s. Of course it would...and thankfully it did.
He would look like a complete idiot if he danced the way he did in 1965...times changed, he changed and he's still the best. Any further dissection of his dancing IMHO is ridiculous because he's almost 70!
Does Tina or James Brown or any other singer with an actual 'stage presence' go through the same kind of critical analysis?
I think it's kind of funny how we 'eat our own' on this board. Classic, subjugation of others to make ourselves feel better.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 23, 2011 16:55
I think the whole Rock Singer image is dead. Noone cares about it anymore. In later years Winehouse was the best rock star. Doherty. Before that Cobain. Rose.
If you are a really good singer, sure, but the whole rock star lifestyle is just passé. In that sense Jagger's show has to be like it is now if they dont start to write new material (that sounds new not like safe grown up country rock) or give the old numbers a new treatment.
If you are a really good singer, sure, but the whole rock star lifestyle is just passé. In that sense Jagger's show has to be like it is now if they dont start to write new material (that sounds new not like safe grown up country rock) or give the old numbers a new treatment.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: December 23, 2011 19:09
This kind of touches on the discussion here.
I think once and in the last 15 years, Jagger was asked how he stayed skinny and he said he ran 5 or 8 miles a day .... (ref. [ultimateclassicrock.com] ), I wonder if he still does that, anyone at any age would have to be in rather ace condition to do that, even the minimum of 5 if it was even 6 days a week. I have always wondered about his diet, he could eat about anything, for the record, Indian food Saag which is spinach, I love that stuff.
I think once and in the last 15 years, Jagger was asked how he stayed skinny and he said he ran 5 or 8 miles a day .... (ref. [ultimateclassicrock.com] ), I wonder if he still does that, anyone at any age would have to be in rather ace condition to do that, even the minimum of 5 if it was even 6 days a week. I have always wondered about his diet, he could eat about anything, for the record, Indian food Saag which is spinach, I love that stuff.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 23, 2011 19:25
Quote
BroomWagon
This kind of touches on the discussion here.
I think once and in the last 15 years, Jagger was asked how he stayed skinny and he said he ran 5 or 8 miles a day .... (ref. [ultimateclassicrock.com] ), I wonder if he still does that, anyone at any age would have to be in rather ace condition to do that, even the minimum of 5 if it was even 6 days a week. I have always wondered about his diet, he could eat about anything, for the record, Indian food Saag which is spinach, I love that stuff.
It would be impossible, at that age, (certainly any age after 40), to have a physique like that without a strict exercise regime. Whether he's running or not, he is doing aerobic exercise and weight training.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: December 23, 2011 19:33
Quote
treaclefingers
It would be impossible, at that age, (certainly any age after 40), to have a physique like that without a strict exercise regime. Whether he's running or not, he is doing aerobic exercise and weight training.
Obviously from obesity rates, all ages are affected, the average person is 20 lbs. heavier than 20 years ago, I think it's up to the individual.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-23 19:48 by BroomWagon.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: December 23, 2011 22:30
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
Max'sKansasCity
I O R R
Its Overanalyzing Rockn Roll
If zee Dear Doctor asked me..
"Max, what does zee picture make you think of?"
I would reply....
"Dear Doctor, it reminds me of BIG CITY NIGHTS!!"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-23 22:31 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: December 23, 2011 22:35
uuuuummmmmmmm..... Valerie BertinelliQuote
BroomWagon
I think it's up to the individual.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 23, 2011 23:26
Quote
BroomWagonQuote
treaclefingers
It would be impossible, at that age, (certainly any age after 40), to have a physique like that without a strict exercise regime. Whether he's running or not, he is doing aerobic exercise and weight training.
Obviously from obesity rates, all ages are affected, the average person is 20 lbs. heavier than 20 years ago, I think it's up to the individual.
I stand corrected...mucho exercise AND Jenny Craig!
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
matsumoto33
()
Date: December 24, 2011 04:15
Quote
harlem shuffle
I think some people on this board overanalysing Jagger.
He is 68 years now,do you really think he can sing and act like the old days?
What about some overanalysing for Keith.
I could be dreadful
The problem isn't that Jagger can't perform like he did when he was 28, it's that he's trying to. While it's impressive that he still runs 5 miles a day, has a 26 inch waist, is dating a woman significantly younger than himself etc etc, these things only have relevance to the 'spectacle' of the Stones, not their music.
Keith, on the other hand, has already been overanalysed on the 'When did keith start acting like a clown onstage' thread; probably best to vent your spleen about him on there....
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 24, 2011 06:05
Quote
treaclefingers
[He would look like a complete idiot if he danced the way he did in 1965...times changed, he changed and he's still the best. Any further dissection of his dancing IMHO is ridiculous because he's almost 70!
Really????!!!!!
Jagger never danced in 65, the way he dances now, treaclefingers. It was much more in context with the music as a whole, and the spectacle was actually that much smaller. matsumoto33 is spot on in his analysis. I don't know why Jagger can't let his vanity rest for a while, and that would perhaps give him an opportunity to truly concentrate on the music. Yes, he can perhaps shake a leg here, or turn his head there, or use his hands as a form of expressing the music through his being, but the circus act is something that's unbecoming for a man approaching seventy. Musical sincerity would be that much more amiable in my opinion.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 24, 2011 06:16
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
treaclefingers
[He would look like a complete idiot if he danced the way he did in 1965...times changed, he changed and he's still the best. Any further dissection of his dancing IMHO is ridiculous because he's almost 70!
Really????!!!!!
Jagger never danced in 65, the way he dances now, treaclefingers. It was much more in context with the music as a whole, and the spectacle was actually that much smaller. matsumoto33 is spot on in his analysis. I don't know why Jagger can't let his vanity rest for a while, and that would perhaps give him an opportunity to truly concentrate on the music. Yes, he can perhaps shake a leg here, or turn his head there, or use his hands as a form of expressing the music through his being, but the circus act is something that's unbecoming for a man approaching seventy. Musical sincerity would be that much more amiable in my opinion.
Well we're just going to differ...I 'grew up' with the modern Mick, so my viewing sensibilities don't seem to have been scarred in the way yours have. I think there are merits to all the eras.
Does everything he does on stage work? No. Does that diminish him as a performer, or his performances...IMHO, not really. At least he is making it a show. I understand what your saying about the music, but if the music was THE ONLY important thing, I could just listen to it at home. I go to the show for the whole enchilada as they say....and even as a 70 year old, he delivers consistently.
We can disagree...but I think you're far too harsh in your criticism.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
MileHigh
()
Date: December 24, 2011 06:24
Mick needs a smaller stage and to stop running around and jabbing. If they ever do some more shows...
Look at a song like "Sway." The original vocal is so heartfelt and resonates with emotion. That's a song were you should just stand at the mike and _sing_. In the ABB Austin show, you sense the "mechanics" of the song, but not the emotion. They are trying to be sure that they play it right and do the changes at the right times instead of really playing and feeling the song itself.
Mick has enough excess charisma that I think he could pull it off, just standing there and singing from his heart, for a last few shows. Arena-sized, small stage, and focus on _singing_ and let the moves flow from that, not the other way around.
Sigh... I still feel this whole discussion is 20 years too late.
It's _not_ the Stones' fault either, it's just the passing of time.
Where Mick really screwed up was in 75-76 where he became a caricature of himself and sang like a coked-out rock star that couldn't give a sheit. That was a great lost opportunity.
The Stones could have toured from say 1974 through about 1987 and sill have been hot and vital and honest and still young enough to be firing on all cylinders. Instead we only got 1978 and 1981. I can understand that though, they were rich and only toured when it suited them. I don't blame them.
Look at a song like "Sway." The original vocal is so heartfelt and resonates with emotion. That's a song were you should just stand at the mike and _sing_. In the ABB Austin show, you sense the "mechanics" of the song, but not the emotion. They are trying to be sure that they play it right and do the changes at the right times instead of really playing and feeling the song itself.
Mick has enough excess charisma that I think he could pull it off, just standing there and singing from his heart, for a last few shows. Arena-sized, small stage, and focus on _singing_ and let the moves flow from that, not the other way around.
Sigh... I still feel this whole discussion is 20 years too late.
It's _not_ the Stones' fault either, it's just the passing of time.
Where Mick really screwed up was in 75-76 where he became a caricature of himself and sang like a coked-out rock star that couldn't give a sheit. That was a great lost opportunity.
The Stones could have toured from say 1974 through about 1987 and sill have been hot and vital and honest and still young enough to be firing on all cylinders. Instead we only got 1978 and 1981. I can understand that though, they were rich and only toured when it suited them. I don't blame them.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: December 24, 2011 07:28
I acknowledge that there are far more expert opinions than mine here but it isn't like MJ is going to be out there in a jumpsuit and mascara a-la the '72-'75 tours. I don't see the big deal. I know Tom Jones probably still does some shows, he might still have some animation in him without it being exactly what he was doing decades ago.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
DandelionPowderman , Doc , Doxa , hj3009 , KeithNacho , Mr.Soul , NeddieFlanders , Nellcote1971 , petewasbristol , sandandglue , spunky , Stilllife09 , StonedRambler , Stonesfan2146 , wachterc , Witness , wupperstein
Guests:
1719
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10