Since 1969...the 1972 Tour has to be the purest Jagger live...

When you consider the tours...every tour Jagger was playing
some sort of charater...except 1972...think about it.

1969 - the devil/Lucifer

1972 - Mick Jagger

1973, 1975 & 1976 - Glam Rocker (probably influenced by David Bowie)

1978 - Punk

1981 & 1982 - Athlete

1989 - Present - Well behaved professional corporate rocker.

No wonder why Exile and the 1972 tour are considered the best...pure Jagger.

PECMAN

I tend to agree with your assessment.

Yeah I hadn't really thought of it like that. You think his current stage character is just another act, though? I would've thought he was being pure Mick Jagger now, it's just that he's changed a bit since 1972. Gotten older and taken a more professional approach, basically

Agree with stones2000. I think Mick Jagger from 2012 and forward is the closest we will get to the "real" Jagger. And a real good Jagger that is.

Quote
bobo
Agree with stones2000. I think Mick Jagger from 2012 and forward is the closest we will get to the "real" Jagger. And a real good Jagger that is.

Yes I agree this is the real Business man on stage!

Quote
Pecman
Since 1969...the 1972 Tour has to be the purest Jagger live...

When you consider the tours...every tour Jagger was playing
some sort of charater...except 1972...think about it.

1969 - the devil/Lucifer

1972 - Mick Jagger

1973, 1975 & 1976 - Glam Rocker (probably influenced by David Bowie)

1978 - Punk

1981 & 1982 - Athlete

1989 - Present - Well behaved professional corporate rocker.

No wonder why Exile and the 1972 tour are considered the best...pure Jagger.

PECMAN

I'm not so sure about this. It could easily be the other way round too. That Bowie's glam was influence by Jagger. The promo-video for Have you seen your mother, baby, standing in the shadow or for JJF to mention two.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Pecman
Since 1969...the 1972 Tour has to be the purest Jagger live...

When you consider the tours...every tour Jagger was playing
some sort of charater...except 1972...think about it.

1969 - the devil/Lucifer

1972 - Mick Jagger

1973, 1975 & 1976 - Glam Rocker (probably influenced by David Bowie)

1978 - Punk

1981 & 1982 - Athlete

1989 - Present - Well behaved professional corporate rocker.

No wonder why Exile and the 1972 tour are considered the best...pure Jagger.

PECMAN

I'm not so sure about this. It could easily be the other way round too. That Bowie's glam was influence by Jagger. The promo-video for Have you seen your mother, baby, standing in the shadow or for JJF to mention two.

don't doubt that...but then bowie takes it to a completely other level, and that of course influences jagger.

Bowie is out of Jaggers league, and much better!!
jeroen

Quote
corriecas
Bowie is out of Jaggers league, and much better!!
jeroen

Well - it's differend acts. Bowie might be a better spaceman alien landed on earth (but did he surpass 2000 lightyears from home? No I think not).

Decades later it's kind of surprising to hear how weak a singer Bowie actually was. I mean, he was embraced as such magnificent singer in the seventies and eighties, when you compare to Jagger at his best - Jagger is just miles ahead.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
corriecas
Bowie is out of Jaggers league, and much better!!
jeroen

Well - it's differend acts. Bowie might be a better spaceman alien landed on earth (but did he surpass 2000 lightyears from home? No I think not).

Decades later it's kind of surprising to hear how weak a singer Bowie actually was. I mean, he was embraced as such magnificent singer in the seventies and eighties, when you compare to Jagger at his best - Jagger is just miles ahead.

As a singer mick Jagger is better than David Bowie? Certainly not by any objective standard (ability to sing in tune, range, etc)

Jagger's best timeline vocally is 1968-1973 to my ears. After GOATS HEAD SOUP he started to wander off a bit. He was still good, of course, but he really nailed it on those 5 albums.

Quote
stones2000
Yeah I hadn't really thought of it like that. You think his current stage character is just another act, though? I would've thought he was being pure Mick Jagger now, it's just that he's changed a bit since 1972. Gotten older and taken a more professional approach, basically

And this wasn't in any way meant to be an insult to Mick or anything...I just think he's taken a more business-like approach to touring, probably. I don't think Mick was ever in love with the music like Keith. Or at least not to nearly the same degree



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-17 20:04 by stones2000.

I for one appreciate also Mick Jagger's socalled "mannerisms". They may sometimes be seen as real sincereity towards song lyrics instead of feigned sincereity.

I am somewhat in doubt about that glam epitet.

Most of all I find it strange to omit all the years up to 1969.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-17 20:10 by Witness.

Most of all I find it strange to omit all the years up to 1969.

Agreed!

I think he was best in 69 and 89, but that many of the mid-60s performances rank among his best.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
corriecas
Bowie is out of Jaggers league, and much better!!
jeroen

Well - it's differend acts. Bowie might be a better spaceman alien landed on earth (but did he surpass 2000 lightyears from home? No I think not).

Decades later it's kind of surprising to hear how weak a singer Bowie actually was. I mean, he was embraced as such magnificent singer in the seventies and eighties, when you compare to Jagger at his best - Jagger is just miles ahead.

As a singer mick Jagger is better than David Bowie? Certainly not by any objective standard (ability to sing in tune, range, etc)

I'm not so sure about these "objective standards" in rock - and certainly not when applied to Bowie. I like lots of Bowie, but think his voice was overrated quality wise. Those who praise Bowie''s voice make it sound as if he could have been a classical singer. His strength was not his voice but the way he conceptualized.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Turner68

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
corriecas
Bowie is out of Jaggers league, and much better!!
jeroen

Well - it's differend acts. Bowie might be a better spaceman alien landed on earth (but did he surpass 2000 lightyears from home? No I think not).

Decades later it's kind of surprising to hear how weak a singer Bowie actually was. I mean, he was embraced as such magnificent singer in the seventies and eighties, when you compare to Jagger at his best - Jagger is just miles ahead.

As a singer mick Jagger is better than David Bowie? Certainly not by any objective standard (ability to sing in tune, range, etc)

I'm not so sure about these "objective standards" in rock - and certainly not when applied to Bowie. I like lots of Bowie, but think his voice was overrated quality wise. Those who praise Bowie''s voice make it sound as if he could have been a classical singer. His strength was not his voice but the way he conceptualized.

Agreed. I just wanted to understand better what you meant. I'd rather listen to Mick sing than Bowie any day, and I do like both.

Saw Bowie at Glastonbury on his second visit.Amazing performance.But of course Sir Mick ,well you just can't come close.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Jagger's best timeline vocally is 1968-1973 to my ears. After GOATS HEAD SOUP he started to wander off a bit. He was still good, of course, but he really nailed it on those 5 albums.

The "Wandering off" started in 1973 already, imo. Compare 72 to 73. The 1975 style was there already on SFM.

Isn't it possible that 1969 - the devil/Lucifer is the purist since the devil can take on many forms?

I'd argue that 1978 was the best performing Jagger, as well as the best on-stage Stones.

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
I'd argue that 1978 was the best performing Jagger, as well as the best on-stage Stones.

He was excellent on stage in 1978. And he was back singing again.

[www.youtube.com]

Jagger’s singing is magical for me until he started proper enunciation so you could understand each and every word. I thought their best lyrics were made better by the need to strive to comprehend what he was singing. So any tour until '889 and on pretty much.

I don't think it's fair to compare Bowie to Mick, because their onstage personas are/were very different. I'm a bigger Stones fan, but I still think Bowie was amazingly brilliant.

My favourite Mick is the one in ladies and gentlemen that wears makeup and dances with his butt to the audience when Keith is singing Happy. Is that the purest Mick? Probably not. But it's my favourite.

Quote
Witness

Most of all I find it strange to omit all the years up to 1969.

Yeah the years 63-69 are the years of Jagger at his purest. Naughty, provoking, causing riots among the audience and liking it a lot. Helmets flying, cops being trammpled by hysteric teens, that's where the real Jagger blossomed.

After the Altamont debacle MJ became an actor, pushing and arousing the audience but never going too far, always making sure he kept control over the crowds.

Altamont caused Mick to have a sense of restraint.

Post Altamont and I happen to like his 75/76 vocals, but then that's me.

Jagger’s “singing” during the ‘75 tour: As far as I’m concerned I happen to love the way he growled, shouted, screamed, slurred, and muttered his way through those shows. He literally sounded like a mad bull that had lost its way. I love the rhythm of the primal sounds brought forth from his throat with such force and power. He stomped all over the carefully crafted and beautiful lyrics and in a maniacal orgy of total and utter expression he gave the words even deeper meaning than if they had been enunciated in the manner of any other singer. His voice mirrors the tattered deportment of the band. It sounds like they’re only inches from all falling apart in shameful disaster but somehow they keep their balance and roll on. And on top of that is our main barker, belting out unintelligible ramblings punctuated with howls of joyful agony. Just listen to the epilogue to Tumbling Dice from Who Went to Church This Sunday/L.A. Friday. Hearing that for the first time changed my outlook on rock n roll.

As far as comparisons to Bowie - different strengths, different weaknesses. I saw the Stones' Urban Jungle in Copenhagen in Aug 1990. Bowie played the same venue approx 2 weeks later. While I didn't attend Bowies gig the papers were full of comparisons. Critics who went to both shows felt that Jagger reached far deeper into the audience than Bowie did.

81 / 82 F'd up. Worst jagger

Quote
stones2000
I don't think Mick was ever in love with the music like Keith. Or at least not to nearly the same degree

I agree with you. He was obviously very interested in it at a certain time in his life, which coincided with the band's growing popularity, but it wasn't the same sort of all-consuming passion it seems to be with Keith. Mick said in so many words around the time Exile came out that he was tired of rock and roll and wanted to do something else.

Quote
blivet

Quote
stones2000
I don't think Mick was ever in love with the music like Keith. Or at least not to nearly the same degree

I agree with you. He was obviously very interested in it at a certain time in his life, which coincided with the band's growing popularity, but it wasn't the same sort of all-consuming passion it seems to be with Keith. Mick said in so many words around the time Exile came out that he was tired of rock and roll and wanted to do something else.

Keef's a musician's musician i.e. his destiny was to be a cult figure among rock specialists.
Mick was a mainstream musician, always. And his flair for what'll "work" with the audience is unparalleled.

I once eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of Stones and a record engineer who "did" the SG sessions. He recalled how Jagger directed the final edit of "Miss You". "Cut this!" "Two bars of that" etc etc.
20+ years later the engineer was still in awe.

Quote
dcba

Quote
blivet

Quote
stones2000
I don't think Mick was ever in love with the music like Keith. Or at least not to nearly the same degree

I agree with you. He was obviously very interested in it at a certain time in his life, which coincided with the band's growing popularity, but it wasn't the same sort of all-consuming passion it seems to be with Keith. Mick said in so many words around the time Exile came out that he was tired of rock and roll and wanted to do something else.

Keef's a musician's musician i.e. his destiny was to be a cult figure among rock specialists.
Mick was a mainstream musician, always. And his flair for what'll "work" with the audience is unparalleled.

That's a great way of describing the difference between the two!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-18 19:48 by stones2000.