Exactly. I am amazed everytime I see the Stones and watch Jagger strut his stuff. I know sixty year olds who can barely get out of bed. This man truely wants to put off old age for as long as he can and he can only be commended for that. Tattoome, if he were fat and out of shape he may have a few less wrinkles. Is that the Mick you want?
Re: did you see pic of mick in toronto why he looks bad
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: July 22, 2005 19:48
Bad picture yes. He's still sexy. Just having a bad hair day. He was probably getting some in the back seat on the way in. I pray I'm still getting some at 60. Later, cw
if we look in the mid60s like mick, we had a stroke of luck
----------------------------------------------------- Oh, give me the beat, boys, and free my soul I wanna get lost in your rock and roll and drift away
OH PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE, the wind blew his hair up, he doesn't deliberately COMB IT THAT WAY! Is this all you have to comment on, his bloody hair! Mick is 62 next week and for me he is still the sexiest man on the planet!
He looks fine to me. What's the problem? He's smiling, waving, talking on his cell. It doesn't look as though Mick has had any work done (surgically) on his body. A lot of people with his money and exposure would have had those wrinkles ironed out years ago. I say he looks great.
Now I understand your message at the other thread! That's the difference: I'm interested in good music, not in some emotional, erotical or sexual relationships with the guys. That's your problem. We can just listen to the music, without any hormones blurring the sound and the songs...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-23 00:35 by micawber.
MICA!!!!!!!!!!!PLEASE! Understand, although I do find Mick very sexy I am seriously interested in their MUSIC! I am 46 and have followed this band since I've been 12 and I play blues guitar, slide too so I understand the dynamics of the band! Try hard NOT to be so condescending because I happen to be fEMALE! I know as much about this band, if not MORE than you care to know! Actually I probably FORGOT MORE than you ever knew! I do admit to defending Mick when I feel he is not taken seriously or when his role in the band is diminished! Make no mistake, if not for Mick, there would be NO STONES TOUR TODAY! !
Debra wrote: "...seriously or when his role in the band is diminished! Make no mistake, if not for Mick, there would be NO STONES TOUR TODAY! "
You don't know TOO MUCH dearie, about the band, "IF NOT FOR BRIAN JONES, there would not be the ROLLING STONES AT ALL, period! Brian started and NAMED the band, THE ROLLING STONES. Mick was the 3rd Banana back then. Keith joined up with Brian BEFORE Mick did!
DEARIE, LISM, I thought we were talking about The SATONES NOW, not ancient Stones HISTORY, which I've certainly read and if you want the REAL FACTS, Brian was the "self-proclaimed " leader for less than 6 months. Their manager, Andrew Oldham decided Ian Stewart was not looking like a Stone so he determined Stewart was to remain a roadie, doing occasional back-up. He also decided Mick and Keith, not Brian, were to start writing their own music....is this coming back to you, LISMM....and once this dynamic was established, Brian was out of the power position, in more ways than one! Been a fan since 1962, when they were established!
Mick is such a freak of nature. He still has the moves! He makes me tired watching him jump around for 2 hours! He still has energy after 2 hours! He's in terriffic shape and ready to perform every night.