Jagger or Mercury?

Mercury always had a creepy-sleaze quality that wasn't fun - he always looked like a dry cleaner with a leather fetish who wanted to be on stage to get his personal jollies.

Jagger, for all his wrinkled-prune, bigmouth egotism, always has understood it's about the audience and the sheer, nasty joy of giving them what they want.

So the answer is and always will be Jagger, of course. Greatest front-man ever.

Jagger: better performer (though both were excellent).

Mercury: much better looking (at least during his butch shorthaired phase).

Mercury because unlike Jagger, Mercury really could suck the chome off bumper.

Jagger is a great performer. At one concert he got out in the pouring rain and got soaked like everyone in the audience.

Jagger!!!

Yup

Mercury by far was the better singer but like the other poster said he seemed creppy. I got sado leather bar vibes from him .I prefer Jagger

(r1) ever? name 3 top front men.

Mercury. And he could actually sing.

Jagger's a bore.

Jagger

(r3) some serious overbite.

They were both great, but I think Mick was the best frontman in rock history.

Mercury was by far the better singer (who isn't). Jagger isn't a great singer, he's a great *performer*.

Or was. Has he still got any of the old magic?

Mercury was more dramatic and talented. Jagger is carefree and mischievous. Apples to Iran's.

best Jagger vs best Mercury live on stage. Mercury wins every time. a 5 octave voice, Jagger would not have survived without the band.

It's Pan vs. Iran

(r14) apples to zanzibar.

Why no poll, OP?

Robert Plant, then Jagger

how do you attach a clip?

Copy from YouTube, then paste in the url window below.

I agree with R19. 1-Plant, 2-Jagger, if for no other reason, he did so much with so little (looks, voice), and 3-Mercury. All great though. Never really liked that shrimp Daltry.

thanks (r19) let me know if it works next.

Ewwwwww! Old man alert!

[quote]Jagger isn't a great singer, he's a great *performer*.

Jagger cannot sing and he cannot dance. Pouting and prancing around the stage like a retarded peacock isn't exactly what I would call a "great" performance. However, if you enjoy poor singing and dancing; perhaps, for you it is a great performance. I laugh every time I hear that dreadful Move Like Jagger song. Hopefully, no one truly wants to dance that poorly.

It's Mick the Stick

I don't understand how all the band members stay so fucking thin!!! Are they wearing wigs too? Ronnie hair is so thick, for his age....

anyone knows?

Mick was pretty much aping Tina Turner and James Brown in his heyday. Now it's nonstop geriatric aerobics, a stunt in itself, but no groove.

Yes, Ron Wood is assumed to wear a wig. Mick must be too at this point? Ron Wood gets me wondering about Johnny Marr.

I've seen both and it's got to be Jagger. Loved Freddie but he always seemed campy pop while Jagger was cool rock.

Better than both of them though is Bowie. He is the best I've ever seen.

thanks (r19)

(r21) actually. I beg your pardon

him!

Jagger himself admitted that he stole James Brown's moves, when interviewed on the Today show this week.

fun to watch david and freddie under pressure.

thanks to (r21)

Freddie!

[quote]Jagger himself admitted that he stole James Brown's moves, when interviewed on the Today show this week.

What an absolutely terrible insult to Brown.

What's up with the parenthesis around the reply you're referring back to? (Hint: They aren't needed!)

And to me it's:

1. Bowie

2. Plant

3. Mick

4. Freddy

Though, like others have said, Freddy is by far the most talented.

It's Freddie, not Freddy r39.

David Bowie owes much to Popul Vuh. He's ok, but he would be nowhere without the Vuh.

Cough it up, R41. Cough it up and spit it out.

Freddie Mercury was one-note.

R41 Bowie was a star long before he made Station to Station, which is considered the album that was influenced by popul vuh. I think that's what you mean, rather than the mood music group Popul Vuh.

He has been one of the mist original and influential musicians of all time and he freely admits to taking bits and pieces of this and that and turning it into something else, to claim he would be nowhere is just ridiculous. He already was somewhere - a star with a huge following, millions in the bank and a back catalog that would pay for his luxuries for the rest of his life.

Adam Lambert has a phenomenal voice and stage presence.

Jagger is in great shape, he can prance around on stage under the hot lights for 2 hrs every night. That's a feat for his age group.

Jagger wins here, his longevity alone and ability as noted to produce night after night at his age and stay in the shape he's in gives him the top vote.

Mercury was also great in his time, as others have said more theatrical/dramatic and with a better singing voice.

I actually prefer Daltrey over Plant myself. Especially nowadays - Daltrey has kept himself in mint shape and can still sing. Time hasn't been as kind to Robert.

There was a time period - maybe '71 to '77 - where Plant reigned supreme over the others as a frontman and live performer but overall Jagger has had the most consistency.

Saw both live in the late '70s... both were electrifying.

Mercury had an incredible voice. Jagger doesn't which is why he had to jazz up his presentation.

Having seen both bands live several times, Mercury all the way. Jagger just shouts now though admittedly better than most 71 year old men - for that alone kudos to Mick. Awwwwwwriiiight!!

Gotta say this for the old codger, Jagger really does put on a show for the audience. You can tell he's giving it his all. I hate paying tons of money for a concert and the band looks bored, disdainful of the audience, listless, or drunk.

Charlie Watts's expression hasn't changed in 50 years.

Cobain was better than all of them. But he actually played an instrument, so he doesn't count.

Bolan.

Jagger or Mercury?

Easy. Tina Turner. Best live performer of all time. She taught Jagger how to move and she has a voice so hot it could "melt vinyl."

Jagger.

Mercury for night and day. Jagger is an untalented trash who is just a footnote in the history while Mercury is iconic in every sense of the term

bump

Mercury

it's not a competition, dolls.

Freddie. His sexual presence was huge. Mick's a prancing, eye-rolling stick.

Freddy’s Dead

Mercury had a better voice than Jagger.. though, I think Jagger has an edge over Mercury with the stage theatrics. Mercury had one of the best singing voices of rock.

David Lee Roth blows them both away

Neither