|
|
| JaGgEr |
Who's the BeSt? Keith or Mick??? |
|
|
| gypsy |
The answer is: GLENN FREY! |
|
|
| Mr T |
if I had to pick a favorite - I'd say Keef |
|
|
| Mother baby |
Flip a coin...as those guys are the two sides of the same coin. |
|
|
| luxury1 |
They are the Glimmer Twins, for cryin out loud!! |
|
|
| Fabio Hot Stuff |
Thatz right Mother Baby!
But there is only a ROCK'NROLL MITH and his name is
K E I T H R I C H A R D S |
|
|
| gypsy |
It's a trick question. The answer is GLENN FREY! |
|
|
| FTELE52 |
I've got to say that the Glimmer Twins were truly a match made in heaven especially in the tasty late '60's to late '70's classic songwriting years. But I must side with the Keef fanatics out there. Seeing the Wino's Dec 10 1987 at the Aragon was a truly blissful rock 'n roll experience. Jagger's solo outings without him just seem to ring hollow to me. |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
CHARLIE-MICK IS A PRANCING NANCE BOY WHOSE BEEN KNIGHTED FOR CHRIST SAKE!KEEF WAS GOD, NOW IS A CABARET SINGER WHO POSES THAT HE IS A GUITAR PLAYER,NONETHELESS I LOVE ALL OF THEM AND WILL PRETEND ITS 1981 WHILST BEING TRASHED AT 3 SHOWS.ONLY CHARLIE IS THE GENUINE ARTICLE! |
|
|
| thief in the night |
You're partly right. Charlie is the real deal.
But get a clue, Keef's still the real deal and always will be the real deal. That's why there are so many cheap keef ripoffs roaming stages these days
When it comes to the Stones music, Keef's the man. Without Richards the Stones are a backup band for more of that crap Jagger puts out ... Goddess, She's the Boss, etc.
Mick? Well, Mick is Mick and that's about all you can say for Sir Michael.
|
|
|
| marcus aurelianus |
I would say Mick Jagger . Although they do represent the two sides of a coin ! |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Mick Jagger is what sets this band apart from all others. That is not to say the Stones are still the Stones without Keith. I've heard/ seen guitar players that can come kinda close to playing like Keith. I've never heard/ seen anyone that comes close to being Mick fucking Jagger.
And don't include his solo stuff. He is trying for something totally different on those.
Snaggle Max! |
|
|
| Martha |
Charlie is my first choice...then I can't seem to seperate the two..KeefMick...Mickkeef....merged. |
|
|
| Happy Motherfucker!! |
One is not better then the other. Apart they are are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, Together they are JAGGER and RICHARDS! When both are on stage they are bigger then life! |
|
|
| parmeda |
Very good for a debatable question, but do you think it's a fair one? They have both been a compliment to each other all of these years...I could never think of one without thinking of the other. |
|
|
| KeepRigid |
Assertions like that can get you sughed!
[Edited by KeepRigid] |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
As The Rolling Stones? Impossible to chose. They complement each other so damn well. As solo acts? Keith. I just think he puts much more soul into his work than Mick does. Watch the two of them on the "Saint Of Me" music video and tell me which one's having a better time. Mick trying to be serious and hip? Or Keith, who doesn't even play on the track, strumming away, smiling, just in general enjoying himself?
The answer, by the way, is Ronnie, who wanders towards the camera like a drunken maniac, his manic smile never disappearing. Ronnie Forever!
-tSYX --- Gonna go downtown, gonna get my gun, gonna get arrested for concealed weaponry, and that's it for The Rolling Stones! |
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]