Tell Me :
Talk
No, Charlie always was a true friend, and never allowed himself to say something disloyal about Jagger. Moreover, this remark made someone who knows Jagger socially and communicate with him. Do you know Jagger, are you his friend? To you he is just a singer and performer, and it's always the same person.
As for Richards - he just acts like an abandoned spouse who can not stand to lose the love of his life. this is patetic, but at least understandable - it's his life. but Keith-lovers are quite another story, they associate themselves with their hero and feel that they are looking at Jagger through his eyes.
this is the clinical pathology
?
I find Keith just as unwatchable as Mick (1989-2011).
For me, around 1978 is the time when Jagger started following fashion rather than dictating it. He was still entertaining then but was already starting to become embarrassing...
Love the Stones more than any other band but only their first decade or so. After that they became a parody of themselves; Jagger especially. I don't separate Jagger and the Stones, I separate the early Stones and the corporate-sponsored, travelling circus they turned into in the 80's. I guess that's what a lot of other people on here do as well....
That's not what I would call a "muscular torso,proudmary
Mick is thin & I like it.
come to think about it, you're right. Wrong word, but still his torso is nice))
but you try and watch the video to the end - you'll see that his body has changed from 70-80s
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-15 15:28 by proudmary.
Yeah thats why they sell Licks etc. The jukebox.
Sure it has changed .He was more skinny in 70
I can't recall either Ryan, but you are certainly correct. There was at least one prominent review from around 1976 (pre Black and Blue anyway), where Jagger was simply savaged for his dancing and prancing around. It might have contained the word uncoordinated even. But then again, despite much acclaim for his writing singing and "dancing" Jagger's work has always drawn significant criticism from one quarter or another. From the first day to whatever the last will be. The Stones have never really enjoyed near unanimous critical acclaim for anything (to the extent some others have, albeit for only brief moments in time). I guess the good thing is for whatever perceived strengths and faults he had over the years, no one could ever say Jagger was ever too thin skinned. Keith either for that matter, but especially Jagger.
As extreme as it sounds, I actually begin to believe this. Just before the release of Some Girls, Richards was going on in some interview (I think it was Creem) about how it was good Wood was there because he (Richards) hated all those antics up on stage and now he (Richards) wouldn't have to do that anymore. But what followed? Richards competing with Jagger pose for pose for the next 30 years...so really, what was the beef all about?
Actually I think the opposite is true - well for certain things.
I think I remember in NME when Black n Blue was released, Charles Shar Murray gave it a less than enthusiastic review. When Jagger saw him shortly afterwards at some party or other he gave Murray abuse from across the room.
I think Mick is sensitive about certain things.
Amen to that. He *likes* to dance. Let the man get his ya-ya's out.
They've allowed you far too close to the man.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-15 17:19 by treaclefingers.
What about touching and tasting an untouchable and untastable mick?
well, he was perspiring on me most of the night at the wiltern show. i should admit he didn't smell much worse than the others around me, though....
no personal experience there, but i hear women think he's tasty...or somethng...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-15 18:04 by StonesTod.
Yes Keith always says the same few things over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Very,very,very,very annoying.
Didn't know about that instance, but yes, I definitely agree with you.
I should probably rephrase... by having a thick skin, I just meant they really don't appear to be easily daunted or intimidated professionally, in the face of ridicule, even by show biz standards. I don't doubt Jagger or the others are not otherwise sensitive personally.
I've experienced that at an AC/DC show...seats to close to the catwalk and Angus flinging the 8 strands or so of remaining hair on the top of his head, spraying sweat on all the fans. I should have been thrilled but 'perspiration from down under' only moved me to back up!
No but the difference is that fans like me, not critics, dont care for the Rolling Stones 1989-2011. Point is like somebody already wrote here that Jagger is forced. I prefer the nutty/tranny/afro Jagger of 1975 or 1976 to the senior pro that does his thing on stage in 2006, 1989 or 1995.
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:
proudmary
()
Date: December 15, 2011 12:53
Quote
GravityBoyQuote
proudmary
What are you talking about? Charlie believes that Jagger is absolutely the best (in past and present) performer on the stage. You probably confuse with a quote from Wyman -a bunch of guys - that he borrowed from someone( and it was originally about other person)
I'm pretty certain it was Charlie, or it was one of the others (Ronnie?) saying it was Charlie who said it, or Charlie saying Bill said it.
It doesn't matter.
Mick is a great bunch of guys.
I love some of them.
No, Charlie always was a true friend, and never allowed himself to say something disloyal about Jagger. Moreover, this remark made someone who knows Jagger socially and communicate with him. Do you know Jagger, are you his friend? To you he is just a singer and performer, and it's always the same person.
As for Richards - he just acts like an abandoned spouse who can not stand to lose the love of his life. this is patetic, but at least understandable - it's his life. but Keith-lovers are quite another story, they associate themselves with their hero and feel that they are looking at Jagger through his eyes.
this is the clinical pathology
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 15, 2011 12:57
Quote
proudmaryQuote
GravityBoyQuote
proudmary
What are you talking about? Charlie believes that Jagger is absolutely the best (in past and present) performer on the stage. You probably confuse with a quote from Wyman -a bunch of guys - that he borrowed from someone( and it was originally about other person)
I'm pretty certain it was Charlie, or it was one of the others (Ronnie?) saying it was Charlie who said it, or Charlie saying Bill said it.
It doesn't matter.
Mick is a great bunch of guys.
I love some of them.
No, Charlie always was a true friend, and never allowed himself to say something disloyal about Jagger. Moreover, this remark made someone who knows Jagger socially and communicate with him. Do you know Jagger, are you his friend? To you he is just a singer and performer, and it's always the same person.
As for Richards - he just acts like an abandoned spouse who can not stand to lose the love of his life. this is patetic, but at least understandable - it's his life. but Keith-lovers are quite another story, they associate themselves with their hero and feel that they are looking at Jagger through his eyes.
this is the clinical pathology
?
I find Keith just as unwatchable as Mick (1989-2011).
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: December 15, 2011 13:05
This thread shouldn't turn into a Mick-lovers Keith-lovers spat.
I was just saying, if I wanted to watch Flashdance I would have bought the DVD.
Rock n Roll has no place for aerobic rehearsed choreography.
Mick tried to do Michael Jackson or something in that Max film, I hated it.
I was just saying, if I wanted to watch Flashdance I would have bought the DVD.
Rock n Roll has no place for aerobic rehearsed choreography.
Mick tried to do Michael Jackson or something in that Max film, I hated it.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
matsumoto33
()
Date: December 15, 2011 14:20
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
matsumoto33Quote
mickschix
Mick is NEVER NOT COOL!
Mick hasn't been cool since (at least) 1976
1978 was the last time Mick was cool. 1989-2011 is too professional in a bad way.
For me, around 1978 is the time when Jagger started following fashion rather than dictating it. He was still entertaining then but was already starting to become embarrassing...
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
matsumoto33
()
Date: December 15, 2011 14:29
Quote
lem motlow
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?
Love the Stones more than any other band but only their first decade or so. After that they became a parody of themselves; Jagger especially. I don't separate Jagger and the Stones, I separate the early Stones and the corporate-sponsored, travelling circus they turned into in the 80's. I guess that's what a lot of other people on here do as well....
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
steel driving hammer
()
Date: December 15, 2011 14:37
It's the biggest circus on the planet.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: December 15, 2011 15:14
To each his own.
You think it's embarassing, I say this is fantastic. you say aerobic rehearsed, I think it encouraged and spontaneous. And, my god, when I see his muscular torso and flat stomach, I do not think about the sponsors and is he a parody of himself.
Funny, but all my family, friends and acquaintances, whom I am constantly trying to proselytize to the Stones, prefer Licks tour not Ladies&Gentlemen, or the Stones in the Park, or 75th year or LSTNT. There have been no exception so far
You think it's embarassing, I say this is fantastic. you say aerobic rehearsed, I think it encouraged and spontaneous. And, my god, when I see his muscular torso and flat stomach, I do not think about the sponsors and is he a parody of himself.
Funny, but all my family, friends and acquaintances, whom I am constantly trying to proselytize to the Stones, prefer Licks tour not Ladies&Gentlemen, or the Stones in the Park, or 75th year or LSTNT. There have been no exception so far
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: December 15, 2011 15:17
Quote
proudmary
. And, my god, when I see his muscular torso and flat stomach, I do not think about the sponsors and is he a parody of himself.
That's not what I would call a "muscular torso,proudmary
Mick is thin & I like it.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
matsumoto33
()
Date: December 15, 2011 15:22
Quote
proudmary
To each his own.
You think it's embarassing, I say this is fantastic. you say aerobic rehearsed, I think it encouraged and spontaneous.
Yep. Wouldn't be much of a board if we all had the same opinions...
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: December 15, 2011 15:25
Quote
SwayStonesQuote
proudmary
. And, my god, when I see his muscular torso and flat stomach, I do not think about the sponsors and is he a parody of himself.
That's not what I would call a "muscular torso,proudmary
Mick is thin & I like it.
come to think about it, you're right. Wrong word, but still his torso is nice))
but you try and watch the video to the end - you'll see that his body has changed from 70-80s
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-15 15:28 by proudmary.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 15, 2011 15:27
Quote
proudmary
To each his own.
You think it's embarassing, I say this is fantastic. you say aerobic rehearsed, I think it encouraged and spontaneous. And, my god, when I see his muscular torso and flat stomach, I do not think about the sponsors and is he a parody of himself.
Funny, but all my family, friends and acquaintances, whom I am constantly trying to proselytize to the Stones, prefer Licks tour not Ladies&Gentlemen, or the Stones in the Park, or 75th year or LSTNT. There have been no exception so far
Yeah thats why they sell Licks etc. The jukebox.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: December 15, 2011 15:32
Quote
proudmaryQuote
SwayStonesQuote
proudmary
. And, my god, when I see his muscular torso and flat stomach, I do not think about the sponsors and is he a parody of himself.
That's not what I would call a "muscular torso,proudmary
Mick is thin & I like it.
come to think about it, you're right. Wrong word, but still his torso is nice))
but you try and watch the video to the end - you'll see that his body has changed from 70-80s
Sure it has changed .He was more skinny in 70
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: December 15, 2011 15:52
Quote
ryanpowQuote
Justin
...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?
Im only a few years older than you so I wasn't around back then. I agree that it seems more forced now but I think Mick's moves have been a focal point of the show from the very beginning. The show has become more like an aerobic workout for him but think of the 75 or 81 tour.. you could say all he did was run around and prance and just barked instead of singing. I remember reading a review totally laying into him of a show in 76 that pretty much said that. I wish I could remember where I read it.
I can't recall either Ryan, but you are certainly correct. There was at least one prominent review from around 1976 (pre Black and Blue anyway), where Jagger was simply savaged for his dancing and prancing around. It might have contained the word uncoordinated even. But then again, despite much acclaim for his writing singing and "dancing" Jagger's work has always drawn significant criticism from one quarter or another. From the first day to whatever the last will be. The Stones have never really enjoyed near unanimous critical acclaim for anything (to the extent some others have, albeit for only brief moments in time). I guess the good thing is for whatever perceived strengths and faults he had over the years, no one could ever say Jagger was ever too thin skinned. Keith either for that matter, but especially Jagger.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: December 15, 2011 15:58
Quote
proudmaryQuote
GravityBoy
Oh and one more thing, I'm pretty sure Keith Richards said something about not liking Mick's antics much on a big stage, all the running around.
Absolutely, you are very accurately described the cause. All of this antipathy to Jagger even contempt and denial, the desire to examine under a microscope and take just what was so far in the past that no one remembers - it all comes from Richards. His campaign against Jagger lasts 25 years - and of course these are the results.
As extreme as it sounds, I actually begin to believe this. Just before the release of Some Girls, Richards was going on in some interview (I think it was Creem) about how it was good Wood was there because he (Richards) hated all those antics up on stage and now he (Richards) wouldn't have to do that anymore. But what followed? Richards competing with Jagger pose for pose for the next 30 years...so really, what was the beef all about?
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: December 15, 2011 16:06
micks last reckless tour was 81-82, after that he became more restrained but still very entertaining IMO, although i prefer the reckless mick
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: December 15, 2011 16:19
Quote
SweetThing
whatever perceived strengths and faults he had over the years, no one could ever say Jagger was ever too thin skinned.
Actually I think the opposite is true - well for certain things.
I think I remember in NME when Black n Blue was released, Charles Shar Murray gave it a less than enthusiastic review. When Jagger saw him shortly afterwards at some party or other he gave Murray abuse from across the room.
I think Mick is sensitive about certain things.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 15, 2011 16:54
After glancing through this thread, the only thing that seems obvious is...
then don't watch.
close your eyes, don't buy the DVD's whatever, but quit torturing yourself...stop being crybabies about it.
then don't watch.
close your eyes, don't buy the DVD's whatever, but quit torturing yourself...stop being crybabies about it.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 15, 2011 17:05
i can watch an unwatchable mick, but i have trouble listening to an unlistenable mick...and i also don't enjoy smelling an unsmellable mick....
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: December 15, 2011 17:07
well like keith always says , this thing is bigger than both of us
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Claire_M
()
Date: December 15, 2011 17:10
Quote
stonesrule
Mick warned you all early on "Had to dance."
He likes performing...enjoys the challenge.
Amen to that. He *likes* to dance. Let the man get his ya-ya's out.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 15, 2011 17:18
Quote
StonesTod
i can watch an unwatchable mick, but i have trouble listening to an unlistenable mick...and i also don't enjoy smelling an unsmellable mick....
They've allowed you far too close to the man.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-15 17:19 by treaclefingers.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: December 15, 2011 17:46
Quote
StonesTod
i can watch an unwatchable mick, but i have trouble listening to an unlistenable mick...and i also don't enjoy smelling an unsmellable mick....
What about touching and tasting an untouchable and untastable mick?
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 15, 2011 18:03
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
StonesTod
i can watch an unwatchable mick, but i have trouble listening to an unlistenable mick...and i also don't enjoy smelling an unsmellable mick....
They've allowed you far too close to the man.
well, he was perspiring on me most of the night at the wiltern show. i should admit he didn't smell much worse than the others around me, though....
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 15, 2011 18:04
Quote
GravityBoyQuote
StonesTod
i can watch an unwatchable mick, but i have trouble listening to an unlistenable mick...and i also don't enjoy smelling an unsmellable mick....
What about touching and tasting an untouchable and untastable mick?
no personal experience there, but i hear women think he's tasty...or somethng...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-15 18:04 by StonesTod.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
brianwalker
()
Date: December 15, 2011 18:06
Quote
melillo
well like keith always says , this thing is bigger than both of us
Yes Keith always says the same few things over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Very,very,very,very annoying.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: December 15, 2011 18:08
yeah but that one happens to be one of the few true ones
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: December 15, 2011 18:42
Quote
GravityBoyQuote
SweetThing
whatever perceived strengths and faults he had over the years, no one could ever say Jagger was ever too thin skinned.
Actually I think the opposite is true - well for certain things.
I think I remember in NME when Black n Blue was released, Charles Shar Murray gave it a less than enthusiastic review. When Jagger saw him shortly afterwards at some party or other he gave Murray abuse from across the room.
I think Mick is sensitive about certain things.
Didn't know about that instance, but yes, I definitely agree with you.
I should probably rephrase... by having a thick skin, I just meant they really don't appear to be easily daunted or intimidated professionally, in the face of ridicule, even by show biz standards. I don't doubt Jagger or the others are not otherwise sensitive personally.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 15, 2011 18:44
Quote
StonesTodQuote
treaclefingersQuote
StonesTod
i can watch an unwatchable mick, but i have trouble listening to an unlistenable mick...and i also don't enjoy smelling an unsmellable mick....
They've allowed you far too close to the man.
well, he was perspiring on me most of the night at the wiltern show. i should admit he didn't smell much worse than the others around me, though....
I've experienced that at an AC/DC show...seats to close to the catwalk and Angus flinging the 8 strands or so of remaining hair on the top of his head, spraying sweat on all the fans. I should have been thrilled but 'perspiration from down under' only moved me to back up!
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 15, 2011 20:50
The unlistenable Chuck 'plink plink' 'all smile' '1,2,3,4' Leavell.
Re: The Unwatchable Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 15, 2011 21:37
Quote
SweetThingQuote
ryanpowQuote
Justin
...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?
Im only a few years older than you so I wasn't around back then. I agree that it seems more forced now but I think Mick's moves have been a focal point of the show from the very beginning. The show has become more like an aerobic workout for him but think of the 75 or 81 tour.. you could say all he did was run around and prance and just barked instead of singing. I remember reading a review totally laying into him of a show in 76 that pretty much said that. I wish I could remember where I read it.
I can't recall either Ryan, but you are certainly correct. There was at least one prominent review from around 1976 (pre Black and Blue anyway), where Jagger was simply savaged for his dancing and prancing around. It might have contained the word uncoordinated even. But then again, despite much acclaim for his writing singing and "dancing" Jagger's work has always drawn significant criticism from one quarter or another. From the first day to whatever the last will be. The Stones have never really enjoyed near unanimous critical acclaim for anything (to the extent some others have, albeit for only brief moments in time). I guess the good thing is for whatever perceived strengths and faults he had over the years, no one could ever say Jagger was ever too thin skinned. Keith either for that matter, but especially Jagger.
No but the difference is that fans like me, not critics, dont care for the Rolling Stones 1989-2011. Point is like somebody already wrote here that Jagger is forced. I prefer the nutty/tranny/afro Jagger of 1975 or 1976 to the senior pro that does his thing on stage in 2006, 1989 or 1995.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
bobo , cyclist , hasenfuss , JadedFaded , Kobroo , midimannz , Racca1962 , riccardo99 , rockdriguez67 , rskinno , skorpio65 , stone3009 , straycatuk , vinckske
Guests:
1696
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10