Posted on 07/26/2013 5:38:45 AM PDT by FlJoePa
More than four decades ago, Mick Jagger claimed that he couldn’t imagine jumping around a stage and singing rock and roll when he was thirty. If things didn’t turn out quite like he imagined they might, Jagger — who turns 70 on July 26 — has certainly beaten the odds. Not only has rock music not cut him down as it has far too many others, it’s kept him young.
An impossibly agile performer, Jagger — as these clips, presented in chronological order, attest — still has most of the moves he displayed when he first took the stage with the Rolling Stones a half century ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at entertainment.time.com ...
Saw him in 1965 at the SF Civic Auditorium along with Paul Revere and the Raiders. Man, it was a great show. Jagger was pretty cool. Paul Revere and the Raiders were also an awesome show.
My little guitar students LOVE the Stones.
They want to learn all the songs.
With all their iPads, iPhones, iPods, You Tube, Music Software, Loop-generators, beat-boxes, and laptops making all of today’s “music” available to them, they would rather play “Ruby Tuesday” with me on bass and singing harmony.
That says something about both today’s “music” and about the Rolling Stones.
Happy Birthday, Mick.
I didn’t like the ugly basket then and I still don’t like him.
But it’s fine for people who do.
LOL...I never said he was good looking.
My comment was actually more of a commentary on the sad state of pop music these days. It’s hard to teach contemporary music when you know it won’t last out the year.
After what he said about Bush and bathhouse Barry and comparing their intelligence, he can head back over the pond or just drown in it.
Back in the mid-60s as a young teenager, I can remember spending so much time playing “drop the needle” on my vinyl Stones’ albums — picking off and learning all of Keith Richards’ guitar solos note for note by ear.
I’ve been playing guitar for almost 52 years now, and my tastes and skills have gotten considerably more sophisticated, but those early years spent taking solos off those albums were a critical stage in my development as a player.
While I don’t think anyone could call Jagger a “conservative”, I have gotten the impression over the years that he is not nearly as reflexively left wing as most of his show-biz brethren, especially when it comes to (not just his own) economic issues.
Jagger was a fan of Thatcher, FWIW.
You did that too? LOL.
Glad I wasn’t alone! :-)
Rock On, My FRiend!
Lots of people think Zero is above average intelligence. I consider these folks just uninformed. Jagger included. They only listen to what it sounds like - not to the content.
Obama gives his speeches to the ultra-rich white elites sounding like a tenured Harvard professor. He goes down the street and speaks to blue-collar workers and his accent and vocabulary changes. He has other masks, too. Jack of all trades - master of none.
Yep, clearly a proponent of the mantra: “I may be crazy, but I’m not stupid”.
My late beloved girlfriend was a very accomplished internationally acclaimed professional classical viola player in an award-winning string quartet, as well as a pillar of the Boston area professional classical community. She had amazing chops and could sight read anything, which always amazed me since I’m not very good at doing that.
But what amazed her (and so many of her professional colleagues) was that I could hear something and play it by ear on my guitar. It used to be a source of wonder to me how many really brilliant classical players (of whom I met many during our relationship) couldn’t even recognize a simple blues progression when they heard one.
Nothing like copping licks of recordings to build those ears.
Saw the Rolling Stones on their farewell tour... back in 1982. :-)
Some people have it and others don’t. I was a mediocre trombone player who could sight read okay, but I couldn’t listen and play at all.
I remember reading somewhere that Jagger has a very high IQ and was a brilliant scholar before he was famous.
Certainly there is some truth in that. But I think it's more about the difference in how one is trained.
What I learned from interacting with classical musicians who were interested in learning about jazz is that they are trained so that their fingers respond instantly to what their eyes see on the page. They actually experience anxiety at the thought of playing without a sheet of music in front of them.
They are not trained to have their fingers respond to what their ears are hearing. So in order to learn to improvise (i.e. play by ear), they need to learn a different set of listening skills, and also a level and type of music theory that is completely new to them.
I developed a method that had them improvising the blues within one hour of the first lesson. One professional viola da gamba player had previously tried to without success to learn to improvise through lessons with a jazz player. She later said to me: "With that teacher, after an hour I felt stupid. With you, after an hour, I was playing the blues."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.