|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
This may seem like a dumb post, but I thought it could make an interesting discussion and I know there is going to be some interesting responses!
We all talk about how cool Keith is, or how great Brian looked, but what about Mick? He was certainly considered "Hip" by teens in the mid to late 60's, but I suppose somewhat less in the 70's. I have been watching my Ladies And Gentlemen DVD and he looks so cool with that jean jacket and scarf combination! Then ten years later he's fuckin' prancing around in tights, American Football Shirts and jogging bottoms. Looking at the guy now, like Ronnie, he tries TOO HARD to look trendy. This is just my opinion if he wore what Keith is wearing, he would look even worse! But this is Mick, I do think he is cool; I don't listen to bands who I don't think are cool in some way. Mick is cool because he's Mick.
Alex
|
|
|
| fmk438j |
He is 60. He gets chicks in their 20's.
That is cool.
|
|
|
| SHINE A LIGHT |
yes, very cool but in a different way than keith is sooooooooooooo cool!!! |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Mick Jagger is the frontman for the coolest band on the planet. That makes him inherently one of the coolest people on the planet.
However, he has done some rather uncool things.
Notably his solo albums, State of Shock(both the Jackson recording and the Tina Turner thing at Live Aid), multiple incidents of infidelity to his wives(no it isn't cool to disregard one's sacred vows to a wife, even if you are Mick Jagger), Justin at SARSfest, and of course the big one....accepting the knighthood.
How the man who wrote the lyrics to Street Fighting Man could ever square himself to get in bed with the crown is beyond me. I mean, there was a concerted effort by his gov't to see him and his bandmates incarcerated for many years....and now it's OK to represent that same gov't??? Not to mention that that very same gov't forced he and his bandmates to become tax exiles. They forced them to LEAVE ENGLAND!! But now all is forgiven??
Not cool. Not cool at all.
But the overiding factor in deciding the coolness of Mick Jagger is this....Jagger/Richards. He is one half of the greatest living songwriting team in the history of Rock music. He is a Glimmer Twin. He is a Rolling Stone. He is THE rock n roll frontman. This is the trump card of all trump cards in the cool game.
Mick Jagger is cool. In fact, WAY cool.
[Edited by Sir Stonesalot] |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Very good points Essessy....
But I've come to think of the whole Knight thing as taking cool to an even higher level.
The guy obviously does what he wants regardless of the image us fans think he should be following.
He's all like "They want to knight me? Fine I'll take it. What's that Keith? I shouldn't because it would wreck mine and the Stones image? Blow me. I'm gonna be a knight!"
I think that thinking explains a lot of his mistakes (ie Michael Jackson)
He's cool in a way we can't always understand.
Hey when you wanna rock in the Subterranean Tavern at Casa de Maxy? I'm thinking spring when my boat is in the water....
END TRANSMISSION.
Mackthy! |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Maxy!!
I see things in sort of the same sort of light with a slight variation. It is a testiment to the coolness of Mick Jagger that he can do uncool things and still remain cool afterwards. He cannot make an uncool act cool, but he is so cool that we forgive his transgressions aginst coolness.
Spring sounds good to me. E me with your thoughts. Let's set something up. |
|
|
| egon |
Is Mick cool….?
Is the pope catholic?
Does a one-legged duck swim in circles?
Does Egon like his Heineken?
|
|
|
| Navin |
He's also hot!! |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Well, I know he has been uncool at times since he made it to 30, but he is still the coolest front man in rock! As a Stones fan, I prefer to analyze his triumphs, not his follies (eg. "Just Another Night" video which I saw last night, WTF? Weird subplot, dumb club, trendy 80s music and Mick looked like a cartoon and although he did play lover man to Rae Dawn Chong-am I right?-that didn't save it from being an ugly video). |
|
|
| Mr. D |
I think being the frontman of the greatest rock n roll band ever qualifies as cool. I also agree that he can do very uncool things, and still remain well respected by all. |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
Is Mick cool….?
>Is the pope catholic?
Yes.
>Does a one-legged duck swim in circles?
Yes.
>Does Egon like his Heineken?
I sure do hope not  ...
|
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
How the man who wrote the lyrics to Street Fighting Man could ever square himself to get in bed with the crown is beyond me. I mean, there was a concerted effort by his gov't to see him and his bandmates incarcerated for many years....and now it's OK to represent that same gov't??? Not to mention that that very same gov't forced he and his bandmates to become tax exiles. They forced them to LEAVE ENGLAND!! But now all is forgiven??
As you know, the royal family is not the U.K. government. I'm not trying to be a wiseass, I'm just pointing that out because its a critical point in this criticism that Mick is getting. The Queen knighted Mick, not the local prosecutor in whatever county Redlands is in.
Anyway, I don't get it. Thats like saying anyone who's ever been arrested in the U.S. for possession of controlled substances, should always be against the U.S. government. I think you can be against many things your government does, but still have respect for it as a whole.
As far as governments go, the U.K.'s has been pretty good to its citizens over the years, even if it was caught up in drug hysteria for awhile (the U.S. government still is, to the detriment of itself and its citizens). |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I was kinda making a point of the hypocracy of it all.
I think it's obvious. Mick was arrested for the posession of two tablets of over the counter medication. His gov't, of which the queen is the acknowledged figurehead, tried to have him locked away for several years for having 2 pills that he bought legally. Of course what they were actually doing was trying to silence Mick's influence with the younger generations...by stopping his ability to make music.
Yet now, when the acknowledged figurehead of the gov't that did that to him, bestows him a knighthood...for his service in music, the very thing they were trying to silence...Mick laps it up like a dog. Not cool, IMO.
If my gov't did to me, what Jagger's did to him....no, I would not support it any longer. Ever. For any reason.
In fact, I would renounce my citizenship, and move to Jamaica. Or maybe Barbados. I certainly would not accept any "paltry honor" that was offered to me.
|
|
|
| corgi37 |
Oh yeah, Mick is cool. Always has been. But, i gotta say some things. Mick looked fucking awesome in 81 compared to 72. Fucking fluffy hair cut with tinsel between his eyes and doing a chicken dande? Or 81, in front of 90,000, with eyeliner, Yank footy outfit and running through the crowd? 81 wins baby. Also, Just another night was a mighty fine song. The Running out of luck video is a mighty fine video (by the way, it was rated R here in Oz when it came out, and no bloody way can you find it anywhere now). He got to lick Rae Dawn's boobies for Christ sake! And SirStonesalot, come on. 1967!!! Its now 2004. For fuck sake. He was locked up for a grand total of 1 night! Old jagg's has done alot for music and charity since, thats why he got a gong. And he's remained much more English than old "Pirate" Keith. We gotta start forgetting all this insignificant old shit. I mean, i read in Stones books more about the 65 pissing incident than i do about the 78 tour (or all of the 90's put together). Mick was, what, 24 in 67?? He's 60 now. He's changed. So have you, and us.
P.S. I borrowed and altered that last line from a liner note in a book about the WHO. Kinda cool though. "Oi, de 'oo aint a mod band no more". "Yeah, they changed, so ave you Gov'ner, nuvver pint?" "Dont mind if i do, me old mucka". "What bout u, Lord Chiselthwaite, nuvva brandy?" "Lord sakes, man, i am not a fish. Oh, very well, and find me that barrow boy, i wish to have him work in my coal mine". "wha? U better than us? You fink you can tell us wot ta do? Me wife, Samantha Fox might disagree." "See here, ya flipping son of a fish-mongers slapper, Jo Guest is a better bird." "Watch ya mouff, ya geezer". "Oooh, you are wicked, but i like you". "Anyone seen my pussy?" "Its a deceased bird. It has ceased to be. Its stuffed mate". "Cor, blimey, me kipper aint like the one from Liverpool". "Bleeding heck, you all is balmy. It aint half hot mum, but i tell ya, Adele Stephens is better than the dear old Quenn Mum". "I just about had enough of your guff, Annie Taverner is the scrubber of Page 3 girls, and i wont hear nuffink different". "Oh bugger, my chip butty has a moth in it".
Ummm, thats about it. What the fuck i am on about, i no longer know. |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
I don't understand why some get so wound up about his Knighthood. What’s the big deal? I couldn't careless about the guy’s private life or what he thinks of the Queen. I DO AGREE that the Government mistreated him in the 60's, it was pretty disgusting really. As everyone knows, they wanted to make "examples of the Stones" Also, they were different times. It WOULDN'T happen now. As for renouncing his Citizenship, well I don't agree with that. You might renounce your Citizenship, but British people don't do that sort of thing. Evan Keith has never got round to renouncing his Citizenship, despite the fact that he only normally spends a couple of weeks a year here.
Sir Stonesalot, I admire your posting and I nearly ALWAYS agree with your points, but I thought for once I would have a go at disagreeing!
Alex
|
|
|
| egon |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
>Does Egon like his Heineken?
I sure do hope not ...
now why doe you say these cruel things? |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
Yet now, when the acknowledged figurehead of the gov't that did that to him, bestows him a knighthood...for his service in music, the very thing they were trying to silence...Mick laps it up like a dog.
Why not?
In a sense, awarding of a knighthood after all the persecutions (a long time afterwards, but still) shows that the Stones have won. It's the gov't's way to acknowledge the importance of the Stones and of their frontman in popular culture as well as in music. We could argue that a knighthood is perhaps not a suitable honor for a rocker but it shows that the Stones have remained and that the very establishment that hated them in the 60s has changed.
So why shouldn't Mick be glad about it? (That and the fact that, of course, he's an ambitious and competitive s.o.b.! Which is fine, it's just the way he is, and I wouldn't want him to be different.) |
|
|
| stonedatbirth666 |
He was until his SIR crap! |
|
|
| Gazza |
A few cold facts here amongst all the emotional outpourings and angst:
The monarchy, government and judiciary are three entirely separate bodies.
The monarchy had about as much to do with persecuting Mick Jagger in 1967 and for choosing to knight him in 2002 as I had. (And I was 4 in 1967 and on holiday in Spain in 2002 when his knighthood was announced)
Mick Jagger (and Keith and Brian) was persecuted primarily by the judiciary of the time and the police, not the Labour government. Granted, I'm sure there would have been a few government figures glad to see the Stones banged up, but theres no evidence of any conspiracy to do so. To suggest otherwise is pretty exaggerated.
In fact, Mick's defending QC at his trial, Sir Michael Havers later became a senior Conservative member of parliament and was a Cabinet minister in both the Heath and Thatcher governments (on a sidenote for trivia buffs, he was also the father of British actor Nigel Havers).
The judiciary in the UK is - like those in any country - prone to serious prejudice at times. Not as bad as it was in 1967 though,thankfully. Loathsome though they may be, the government do not run the judiciary in the UK and neither are they responsible for a few bent cops. Anyone who lives in the UK for more than a few hours can find numerous daily examples of how the legal system frequently overrides the policy of the government. (What makes this even more bizarre at the minute is that one of the most powerful human rights lawyers in the UK at the minute, acting to the detriment of government policy - is none other than Cherie Blair, wife of the Prime Minister)
The Stones were NOT "forced" to leave the country due to high taxes. They chose to - quite justifiably of course. However, no one put a gun to their heads or picked on them specifically. They were hardly persecuted or singled out. A lot of other high earners did the same around that time -Michael Caine, Sean Connery, Rod Stewart. Thankfully the "supertax" nonsense is a thing of the past.
Every one of the band currently owns a home in the UK. They obviously got over it.
I dont imagine too many Beatles fans in the US reacting adversely to supporting their government despite the way it persecuted John Lennon through much of the 70's. That WAS an example of how a government DID actually go out of their way to tap the phones and carry out other forms of surveillance on an individual rock singer whom they decided was "undesirable".
The Canadian government also were pretty disgusted at Keith's surprisingly lenient sentence when he was busted for heroin in 1977 and sentenced to perform a concert for the blind in October 1978. There was quite a campaign to get it overturned and make him go to jail.
Funny how when it comes to finding somewhere to rehearse for a tour which will save them a fortune in taxes compared to if they did the same in the US, they dont seem to be that bothered by it. They also came to the same government's aid when helping out with the SARS concert in Toronto last July. No one seemed to be concerned at THAT inconsistency.
Of course, the fact that they were paid $10 million for their trouble doesnt seem to bother Keith as much as Jagger's "hypocrisy" in accepting a knighthood from another government who he claims wanted to throw him in jail.
(Before any Canadians jump on my ass,this isnt a rant at the Canadian government or the Stones' decision to play the SARS show - just pointing out the inconsistencies in several arguments, most notably Keith's)
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
At least, Mick's sense of humour is very cool. One of his comment about the knight business:
"Some of my best friends are knights. It is a much maligned group, but I am very happy to be joining them."
 |
|
|
| SHINE A LIGHT |
hot vs, cool???? yes, mick is cool, BUT he is just sooooooooooooo HOT!!!!!! he is much more hot than he is cool. |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
stonedatbirth666 wrote:
He was until his SIR crap!
Well he's certainly kooler than those other "SIRS",
like Sir Macca or Sir Elton. Maybe not quite as kool as Sir Sean Connery though (he was knighted wasn't he????????) |
|
|
| Zeeta |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Thankfully the "supertax" nonsense is a thing of the past.
Yeah man, that "supertax" thing really was a problem - I'm still feeling the affects!!!
Jagger IS cool but sometimes acts a little strange - but for 40 years in the business who hasn't!? He is the man.
And fuck accepting a knighthood makes him uncool - utter bollocks!
I would have accepted - as always in life you gotta "fuck 'em all" which is what Mick has done, probrably literally as well!
This is a no-brainer he is cool |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
Mick Jagger is a Soul Surivivor. He is way cool!!
His blind chase of the youth factor sometimes makes him uncool-for example, his affiliation with Jacko or Justion. |
|
|
| Navin |
We're so hot for him 'cause he's so cool... |
|
|
| stonedatbirth666 |
Jagger is cool but I cant get over Sir Michael. Peace |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
stonedatbirth666 wrote:
Jagger is cool but I cant get over Sir Michael. Peace
Make him the King and be done with it. Since I'm not a British citizen or a monarchist, I have no say in the matter, but if I were I'd rather be ruled by the House of Jagger than the House of Windsor. James would make a better King than young William. Actually maybe Keith would make a good King of England. The Brits always did hold their pirates in high esteem. |
|
|
| Gazza |
> Since I'm not a British citizen or a monarchist, I have no say in the matter,
Neither do we..lol
> but if I were I'd rather be ruled by the House of Jagger than the House of Windsor.
Sounds a good idea, but the only problem as I see it is, if Mick's ticket prices are anything to go by, the amount of tax we'd end up paying would be frightening. Both houses are pretty even when it comes to the amount of mistresses so it shouldnt be much of an upheaval.
> The Brits always did hold their pirates in high esteem
yeah. So much so that we usually end up electing the fuckers! |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
quote:
egon wrote:
now why doe you say these cruel things?
cos Heineken is "bocht" |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Both houses are pretty even when it comes to the amount of mistresses so it shouldnt be much of an upheaval.
Ahhh...mistressess! Life is good.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]
