Think about it:

a) he started his career (with the Stones) in 1962, so he could be considered a legend just as important as Chuck, Little Richard, Elvis, etc.

b) his band made some of the best covers of all time, updating the 40s and 50s music for the future. Enter the era of "postmodernism"

c) he's one of the best songwriters of all time. Perhaps the best, only surpassed by Lennon/Macca. With limited piano/guitar skills he wrote or co-wrote a lot of masterpieces in the 60s and 70s...that's what popular songwriting is about.

d) he was conscious, since the beggining, of the power of multimedia (radio, TV, movies, magazines, etc.) and embraced that power, doing it RIGHT and changing the industry forever, nearly 20 years before Michael...

e) he knew that, after the 60s, the future of the industry was about well-organized WORLD TOURS and a couple of killer singles per album. He's the godfather of INTERNATIONAL arena pop/rock and modern radio ("the album will sell as long as it has some good singles and decent album tracks").

g) he showed that a band can last for more than 40 years if they can absorb new sounds/attitudes (not only blues and rock, but also country, acoustic delta blues, pop, power ballads, funky, reagge, disco, new wave, etc.), if not for him, the Stones would have released 10 direct (and inferior) sequels of Sticky Fingers/Exile...

h) he discovered since the very beginning that the music industry is ruled by crooks, so he just decided that the only way to survive was being the biggest cunt E-V-E-R. He directly or indirectly helped new artists to be more agressive and more in control of their music/image/finances. After Mick Jagger, abusive managers (like Colonel Parker, who ruined Elvis) nearly disappeared...

i) he's still looks sharp, even now...

respect

you totally sold me. Almost 50 years in, and I still think of Mick and the Stones as BEING rock 'n' roll

y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s..y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s..y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s.y.e.s..y.e.s.y.e.s.

Mick is a highly intelligent man (even after all the drug use) and an amazing songwriter. He is definitely an icon, but I would not call his music pop. It's rock & roll at it's best. There is a huge difference IMO.

[Edited 4/29/11 9:26am]

I would say he has survived the odds in an otherwise very tough business. I can see your points though.

I wouldn't categorize him as a pop musician. Rock definitely.

There are several potential classics on his solo album debut She's The Boss from 1985. "Lucky in Love" & "1/2 a Loaf" are awesome. If you don't own, get it.

Not POP. The Rolling Stones were a great Rock band though

i never saw him as important i never thought he could sing i dont see nothing special about him

No. I don't think you can single Mick out as being the sole/main contributor to the success of the Stones so I can't say that Mick alone is the ultimate pop musician of all time. He will always be viewed as the lead singer of the Rolling Stones, it's impossible for me to think of him as anything else. To me the Stones never were nor will they ever be Mick Jagger's backing band.

I do think you raised some interesting points about Mick's contributions to how touring evolved and his business acumen. These are things that are sometimes pointed to as flaws of his but they were probably crucial in keeping the Stones going all these years. Who knows what would have happened to thte Stones in the '70s if Mick wasn't there when Keith was in the depths of his drug addiction. In the mid '70s Mick was practically keeping the band going single handedly.

I think it's interesting to compare Mick to someone like Rod Stewart. They are probably two of the "best" rock vocalists and I wonder how Rod's career would have progressed if he had his own Keith to keep him somewhat grounded. I guess he kind of had that with Ron Wood but of course they split. Rod is kind of viewed as a bit of a joke these days while Mick is still widely respected. Maybe it's just me but I see a lot of similarities between these two and Rod is what Mick could have ended up like without someone like Keith around to keep him respectable.

It would have been something to see how Mick's career would have went had the Stones not gotten back together in the late '80s. It's impossible to say for certain but I think he would have churned out fairly forgettable solo albums and slowly faded away before inevitably reuniting with the Stones.

JoeTyler said:

Think about it:

a) he started his career (with the Stones) in 1962, so he could be considered a legend just as important as Chuck, Little Richard, Elvis, etc.

b) his band made some of the best covers of all time, updating the 40s and 50s music for the future. Enter the era of "postmodernism"

c) he's one of the best songwriters of all time. Perhaps the best, only surpassed by Lennon/Macca. With limited piano/guitar skills he wrote or co-wrote a lot of masterpieces in the 60s and 70s...that's what popular songwriting is about.

d) he was conscious, since the beggining, of the power of multimedia (radio, TV, movies, magazines, etc.) and embraced that power, doing it RIGHT and changing the industry forever, nearly 20 years before Michael...

e) he knew that, after the 60s, the future of the industry was about well-organized WORLD TOURS and a couple of killer singles per album. He's the godfather of INTERNATIONAL arena pop/rock and modern radio ("the album will sell as long as it has some good singles and decent album tracks").

g) he showed that a band can last for more than 40 years if they can absorb new sounds/attitudes (not only blues and rock, but also country, acoustic delta blues, pop, power ballads, funky, reagge, disco, new wave, etc.), if not for him, the Stones would have released 10 direct (and inferior) sequels of Sticky Fingers/Exile...

h) he discovered since the very beginning that the music industry is ruled by crooks, so he just decided that the only way to survive was being the biggest cunt E-V-E-R. He directly or indirectly helped new artists to be more agressive and more in control of their music/image/finances. After Mick Jagger, abusive managers (like Colonel Parker, who ruined Elvis) nearly disappeared...

i) he's still looks sharp, even now...

A) True.

B) True, but they didn't pioneer it. Elvis was doing it 10 years before they even released an album.

C) Subjective. I am not a fan of the Stones.

D) That had little to do with Jagger and more to do with those managers you mention.

E) Huh?? The Stones did not pioneer the "couple hits to sell an album" concept. It was happening for decades before them. They didn't pioneer the arena world tour, Zeppelin was doing it as early as '68.

F) You forgot one.

G) Speculative at best. You've no reason to suggest Jagger is the driving force behind their best works.

H) I have a hard time believing you are crediting Jagger with this given that black artists were revolting against the crooks before Jagger did.

I) Subjective. Yuck.

Could be.

I have a lot of time for Mick. Far more than any Beatle anyway. I'd love to jump in the TARDIS and visit the 60's.

Spinlight said:

JoeTyler said:

Think about it:

a) he started his career (with the Stones) in 1962, so he could be considered a legend just as important as Chuck, Little Richard, Elvis, etc.

b) his band made some of the best covers of all time, updating the 40s and 50s music for the future. Enter the era of "postmodernism"

c) he's one of the best songwriters of all time. Perhaps the best, only surpassed by Lennon/Macca. With limited piano/guitar skills he wrote or co-wrote a lot of masterpieces in the 60s and 70s...that's what popular songwriting is about.

d) he was conscious, since the beggining, of the power of multimedia (radio, TV, movies, magazines, etc.) and embraced that power, doing it RIGHT and changing the industry forever, nearly 20 years before Michael...

e) he knew that, after the 60s, the future of the industry was about well-organized WORLD TOURS and a couple of killer singles per album. He's the godfather of INTERNATIONAL arena pop/rock and modern radio ("the album will sell as long as it has some good singles and decent album tracks").

g) he showed that a band can last for more than 40 years if they can absorb new sounds/attitudes (not only blues and rock, but also country, acoustic delta blues, pop, power ballads, funky, reagge, disco, new wave, etc.), if not for him, the Stones would have released 10 direct (and inferior) sequels of Sticky Fingers/Exile...

h) he discovered since the very beginning that the music industry is ruled by crooks, so he just decided that the only way to survive was being the biggest cunt E-V-E-R. He directly or indirectly helped new artists to be more agressive and more in control of their music/image/finances. After Mick Jagger, abusive managers (like Colonel Parker, who ruined Elvis) nearly disappeared...

i) he's still looks sharp, even now...

A) True.

B) True, but they didn't pioneer it. Elvis was doing it 10 years before they even released an album.

C) Subjective. I am not a fan of the Stones.

D) That had little to do with Jagger and more to do with those managers you mention.

E) Huh?? The Stones did not pioneer the "couple hits to sell an album" concept. It was happening for decades before them. They didn't pioneer the arena world tour, Zeppelin was doing it as early as '68.

F) You forgot one.

G) Speculative at best. You've no reason to suggest Jagger is the driving force behind their best works.

H) I have a hard time believing you are crediting Jagger with this given that black artists were revolting against the crooks before Jagger did.

I) Subjective. Yuck.

i agree with you so much, spinlight...

one person who does not get credit for speaking against the industry is la vern baker. she went to congress about making the copying of (R&B) songs note for note (by popular (read:white) artists) illegal.

rialb said:

No. I don't think you can single Mick out as being the sole/main contributor to the success of the Stones so I can't say that Mick alone is the ultimate pop musician of all time. He will always be viewed as the lead singer of the Rolling Stones, it's impossible for me to think of him as anything else. To me the Stones never were nor will they ever be Mick Jagger's backing band.

I do think you raised some interesting points about Mick's contributions to how touring evolved and his business acumen. These are things that are sometimes pointed to as flaws of his but they were probably crucial in keeping the Stones going all these years. Who knows what would have happened to thte Stones in the '70s if Mick wasn't there when Keith was in the depths of his drug addiction. In the mid '70s Mick was practically keeping the band going single handedly.

I think it's interesting to compare Mick to someone like Rod Stewart. They are probably two of the "best" rock vocalists and I wonder how Rod's career would have progressed if he had his own Keith to keep him somewhat grounded. I guess he kind of had that with Ron Wood but of course they split. Rod is kind of viewed as a bit of a joke these days while Mick is still widely respected. Maybe it's just me but I see a lot of similarities between these two and Rod is what Mick could have ended up like without someone like Keith around to keep him respectable.

It would have been something to see how Mick's career would have went had the Stones not gotten back together in the late '80s. It's impossible to say for certain but I think he would have churned out fairly forgettable solo albums and slowly faded away before inevitably reuniting with the Stones.

It's sad to see how Rod Stewart turned out. He had so much potential to be something better than he already was. Mick was lucky he never got in that position because he had/has Keith. Rod could've been great if he and Jeff had continued together but alas it wasn't to be.

Spinlight said:

JoeTyler said:

Think about it:

a) he started his career (with the Stones) in 1962, so he could be considered a legend just as important as Chuck, Little Richard, Elvis, etc.

b) his band made some of the best covers of all time, updating the 40s and 50s music for the future. Enter the era of "postmodernism"

c) he's one of the best songwriters of all time. Perhaps the best, only surpassed by Lennon/Macca. With limited piano/guitar skills he wrote or co-wrote a lot of masterpieces in the 60s and 70s...that's what popular songwriting is about.

d) he was conscious, since the beggining, of the power of multimedia (radio, TV, movies, magazines, etc.) and embraced that power, doing it RIGHT and changing the industry forever, nearly 20 years before Michael...

e) he knew that, after the 60s, the future of the industry was about well-organized WORLD TOURS and a couple of killer singles per album. He's the godfather of INTERNATIONAL arena pop/rock and modern radio ("the album will sell as long as it has some good singles and decent album tracks").

g) he showed that a band can last for more than 40 years if they can absorb new sounds/attitudes (not only blues and rock, but also country, acoustic delta blues, pop, power ballads, funky, reagge, disco, new wave, etc.), if not for him, the Stones would have released 10 direct (and inferior) sequels of Sticky Fingers/Exile...

h) he discovered since the very beginning that the music industry is ruled by crooks, so he just decided that the only way to survive was being the biggest cunt E-V-E-R. He directly or indirectly helped new artists to be more agressive and more in control of their music/image/finances. After Mick Jagger, abusive managers (like Colonel Parker, who ruined Elvis) nearly disappeared...

i) he's still looks sharp, even now...

A) True. RIGHT

B) True, but they didn't pioneer it. Elvis was doing it 10 years before they even released an album. RIGHT, but in the case of Elvis, it was because of lack of original material, mostly. The Stones did it because they basically started as a covers club band, at least until late-1964...when their manager forced them to write songs...

C) Subjective. I am not a fan of the Stones. SHAME ON YOU

D) That had little to do with Jagger and more to do with those managers you mention. Their manager, Andrew L. Oldman (or Oldham, can't rememba) was fired in 1967, and Mick and the rest of the band (but specially Mick) keep developing the image (including the logo) of the band...

E) Huh?? The Stones did not pioneer the "couple hits to sell an album" concept. It was happening for decades before them. They didn't pioneer the arena world tour, Zeppelin was doing it as early as '68. /Decades? more like 5 years earlier (Elvis, Cash, Little Richard) but not much more. Many early R&B, RnR and blues pioneers were NOT album oriented...But I do agree that both Zeppelin and the Stones are the godfathers of arena rock. The 1969-70 tour of the Stones was bigger than any tour of Zeppelin at that point, though...

F) You forgot one. huhuh

G) Speculative at best. You've no reason to suggest Jagger is the driving force behind their best works. Well, it is written that Mick was basically the driving force of the band during the 73-83 era...their most experimental era (ballads, funk, disco, new wave...) I don't think that a country/blues Keith album would have been successful in 1978...

H) I have a hard time believing you are crediting Jagger with this given that black artists were revolting against the crooks before Jagger did. But did they succeeded? or was it a bittersweet victory? Mick destroyed the crooks and got richer/more powerful/more famous in the process...

I) Subjective. Yuck. HE'S A HOT UGLY MAN

Timmy84 said:

rialb said:

No. I don't think you can single Mick out as being the sole/main contributor to the success of the Stones so I can't say that Mick alone is the ultimate pop musician of all time. He will always be viewed as the lead singer of the Rolling Stones, it's impossible for me to think of him as anything else. To me the Stones never were nor will they ever be Mick Jagger's backing band.

I do think you raised some interesting points about Mick's contributions to how touring evolved and his business acumen. These are things that are sometimes pointed to as flaws of his but they were probably crucial in keeping the Stones going all these years. Who knows what would have happened to thte Stones in the '70s if Mick wasn't there when Keith was in the depths of his drug addiction. In the mid '70s Mick was practically keeping the band going single handedly.

I think it's interesting to compare Mick to someone like Rod Stewart. They are probably two of the "best" rock vocalists and I wonder how Rod's career would have progressed if he had his own Keith to keep him somewhat grounded. I guess he kind of had that with Ron Wood but of course they split. Rod is kind of viewed as a bit of a joke these days while Mick is still widely respected. Maybe it's just me but I see a lot of similarities between these two and Rod is what Mick could have ended up like without someone like Keith around to keep him respectable.

It would have been something to see how Mick's career would have went had the Stones not gotten back together in the late '80s. It's impossible to say for certain but I think he would have churned out fairly forgettable solo albums and slowly faded away before inevitably reuniting with the Stones.

It's sad to see how Rod Stewart turned out. He had so much potential to be something better than he already was. Mick was lucky he never got in that position because he had/has Keith. Rod could've been great if he and Jeff had continued together but alas it wasn't to be.

It's amazing that Rod can still release "new" albums anyway, he's a survivor...

rialb said:

Rod is kind of viewed as a bit of a joke these days while Mick is still widely respected. Maybe it's just me but I see a lot of similarities between these two and Rod is what Mick could have ended up like without someone like Keith around to keep him respectable.

It would have been something to see how Mick's career would have went had the Stones not gotten back together in the late '80s. It's impossible to say for certain but I think he would have churned out fairly forgettable solo albums and slowly faded away before inevitably reuniting with the Stones.

Mick is smart. He knows that he needs Keith and that his fans want him working with Keith

in the 80s, Mick probably thought that dance/synth-pop music was the FUTURE. When it was obvious that you can't kill "old", organic pop/rock, he knew it was time to reunite the Stones (Steel Wheels + 89-90 world tour). Hell, even his 1993 solo album was basically old-school hard-rock + country-rock...

Timmy84 said:

rialb said:

No. I don't think you can single Mick out as being the sole/main contributor to the success of the Stones so I can't say that Mick alone is the ultimate pop musician of all time. He will always be viewed as the lead singer of the Rolling Stones, it's impossible for me to think of him as anything else. To me the Stones never were nor will they ever be Mick Jagger's backing band.

I do think you raised some interesting points about Mick's contributions to how touring evolved and his business acumen. These are things that are sometimes pointed to as flaws of his but they were probably crucial in keeping the Stones going all these years. Who knows what would have happened to thte Stones in the '70s if Mick wasn't there when Keith was in the depths of his drug addiction. In the mid '70s Mick was practically keeping the band going single handedly.

I think it's interesting to compare Mick to someone like Rod Stewart. They are probably two of the "best" rock vocalists and I wonder how Rod's career would have progressed if he had his own Keith to keep him somewhat grounded. I guess he kind of had that with Ron Wood but of course they split. Rod is kind of viewed as a bit of a joke these days while Mick is still widely respected. Maybe it's just me but I see a lot of similarities between these two and Rod is what Mick could have ended up like without someone like Keith around to keep him respectable.

It would have been something to see how Mick's career would have went had the Stones not gotten back together in the late '80s. It's impossible to say for certain but I think he would have churned out fairly forgettable solo albums and slowly faded away before inevitably reuniting with the Stones.

It's sad to see how Rod Stewart turned out. He had so much potential to be something better than he already was. Mick was lucky he never got in that position because he had/has Keith. Rod could've been great if he and Jeff had continued together but alas it wasn't to be.

Funny, I never even thought of the Stewart/Beck partnership. I'm a much bigger fan of the Faces than I am of the Jeff Beck Group so I immediately thought of Ron Wood. I think the problem with Stewart/Beck or Stewart/Wood is songwriting. The first two Jeff Beck Group albums are packed with covers and as much as I love the Faces they were more about sound and attitude rather than albums filled with terrific songs. I guess that's one flaw in my fantasy scenario, Stewart/Beck or Stewart/Wood would have had an almost impossible time trying to churn out material that even comes within spitting distance of the best Jagger/Richards material.

Still, there are some interesting parallels between Jagger and Stewart. They both have fantastic "rock" voices and it's sad to see where Rod ended up vs. what could have been. His early solo albums are so good and were fairly unique for that era but sadly they are often overlooked due to the dreck he has released over the last thirty plus years.

whenever you go with "pop" and "all time" I think about American popular music from 20th century onward. As jazz was once preeminent as popular music, I'd submit that Jagger couldn't touch Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington with a 20-foot pole. Heck, he'd have a hard time with Sinatra or Elvis, for that matter. He's a legend, but still, we should avoid "all time" descriptions, as people tend to associate "all time" with "the time with which I'm most familiar."

Like I just did.

Now if you want to say, "of the last 50 years," he's got a better chance but I still say no.

Timmy84 said:

It's sad to see how Rod Stewart turned out. He had so much potential to be something better than he already was. Mick was lucky he never got in that position because he had/has Keith. Rod could've been great if he and Jeff had continued together but alas it wasn't to be.

Rod Stewart is a legendary rock singer. Absolutely amazing.

namepeace said:

Timmy84 said:

It's sad to see how Rod Stewart turned out. He had so much potential to be something better than he already was. Mick was lucky he never got in that position because he had/has Keith. Rod could've been great if he and Jeff had continued together but alas it wasn't to be.

Rod Stewart is was a legendary rock singer. Absolutely amazing.

This I can agree with. Unfortunately for Rod, and unlike Mick, he had a relatively brief time where he was releasing great material. If you take his catalog as a whole probably less than 1/4 of it is good-great. The rest is fairly mediocre. The stuff he has released in the last ten years has been uniformly forgettable, very bland and uninspired covers albums of songs that add absolutely nothing of value to his legacy. It's a much smaller body of work but at least Mick always seems like he is trying in his solo records. Some of them are not to my taste but he never sunk as low as Rod did.

namepeace said:

Timmy84 said:

It's sad to see how Rod Stewart turned out. He had so much potential to be something better than he already was. Mick was lucky he never got in that position because he had/has Keith. Rod could've been great if he and Jeff had continued together but alas it wasn't to be.

Rod Stewart is a legendary rock singer. Absolutely amazing.

And no one will deny that. He is.

I've never felt the Rolling Stone's music, so I don't consider him the ultimate pop musician. I do like few of his songs, but generally I am just not into them, so I guess I cannot say.

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

It's sad to see how Rod Stewart turned out. He had so much potential to be something better than he already was. Mick was lucky he never got in that position because he had/has Keith. Rod could've been great if he and Jeff had continued together but alas it wasn't to be.

It's amazing that Rod can still release "new" albums anyway, he's a survivor...

Thank Clive Davis for that. But yeah.

Timmy84 said:

JoeTyler said:

It's amazing that Rod can still release "new" albums anyway, he's a survivor...

Thank Clive Davis for that. But yeah.

One day, Clive Davis will answer for all his dubious actions

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

Thank Clive Davis for that. But yeah.

One day, Clive Davis will answer for all his dubious actions

JoeTyler said:

Mick destroyed the crooks

I think you better ask Sting, Billy Joel, TLC, George Clinton, anybody on Death Row, Ruthless, or Rap A Lot, etc. about that.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

I think you better ask Sting, Billy Joel, TLC, George Clinton, anybody on Death Row, Ruthless, or Rap A Lot, etc. about that.

Sting???

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

I think you better ask Sting, Billy Joel, TLC, George Clinton, anybody on Death Row, Ruthless, or Rap A Lot, etc. about that.

Sting???

Billy Joel???

Sting & Billy were ripped off by managers. I don't remember the details of Sting's case, but Billy fired and sued his then manager Frank Weber in the late 1980's. There are also big name shady managers like Allen Klein, Doc McGhee, and Don Arden (who is Sharon Osbourne's father). Hall & Oates used to be managed by Tommy Matolla in the 1970's and they didn't much care for him, and even wrote a song about him called Gino. George Harrison had problems with a business partner who was in charge of George's movie company Handmade Films. So I don't see how Mick changed anything about the behind the scenes people.

[Edited 4/30/11 21:25pm]

^ I think we know that but STILL lol