what band has or had a better front man in the and..who did you like most and why??Rolling Stones Front Man Mick Jagger or Paul Mcarteny The Beatles
2007-01-30 13:14:26 · 14 answers · asked by flowerlegz 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
If you are talking Rock bands the Stones and Jagger. if you are talking Pop music the Beatles and McCartney. Stones are the GREATEST ROCK-N-ROLL BAND OF ALL TIME !!!!!!!!!!!!
if u weren't around in the 60s your opinion don't matter so don't bother.
2007-01-30 13:28:34 · answer #1 · answered by RUDOLPH M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, that is almost not possible to answer, if I were choosing between Mick and Paul, it would be Mick, but that is because Paul was never my favorite Beatle, as a matter of fact, he is my least favorite Beatle, John and George tying for first, then Ringo, and then Paul ( or imposter Paul, if you believe that stuff ) but I couldn't possibly pick between the Beatles and the Stones, besides they are two completely different sounds, love them both, the usual question is, are you a Beatles man or an Elvis man? In that case, definately, I am a Beatles fan.
2007-01-30 21:29:46 · answer #2 · answered by barbara b 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Beatle fan from the getgo, but the way you phrase the question I'd have to say Mick. He defines the Stones, whereas back when Paul shared center stage with John, while George hovered in the wings, his talent barely tapped until he went solo.
That said, Paul's talent is incredible and I believe his music will endure far longer than the Stones. Paul's solo work is uneven but he has done remarkable work there as well. Mick's solo career was far less memorable.
And I still love listening to Beatle music. I try to catch "Breakfast with the Beatles" on the radio every Sunday morning, because of the music and the wonderful trivia.
2007-01-30 21:29:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have to say Mick - he had the inner burn to help keep the band going - through divorces, in-fighting, drug & alcohol abuse - and they are still going strong. Just saw him in November and he's still a strong, energetic man w/sex appeal just oozing.
Paul - yes, he is probably the better song writer, but pulled the plug on the band after a short time. I saw Paul at the Ellen Degeneres show in November, 2006, and he's kind of a cute older man, but has zero sex appeal. The energy level was not there and those baby face looks do not age well on anyone.
Sir Mick was also knighted.
2007-01-30 21:27:32 · answer #4 · answered by Taffy Saltwater 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Paul McCartney was never the front man for the Beatles. But he certainly is extremely talented having written many number one selling songs and now writing classical and symphonies. You can't get much more talent than that. Yes he looks much older, but he does it with much grace and has not resorted to cosmetic enhancements.
2007-01-30 22:00:35 · answer #5 · answered by Cherokee Billie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jagger: much more fun and entertaining
Nothing wrong with Paul though
2007-01-31 02:10:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Paul McCartney is just so multi talented and he's a knight to boot. How cool is that?
Paul has simply done a lot more creative things with his career and music which is what makes him so special.
2007-01-30 21:30:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are too different to compare.
I like em both but if had to pick I would say Paul.
2007-01-30 21:43:24 · answer #8 · answered by Kylie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No contest, the Beatles.
2007-01-30 21:20:07 · answer #9 · answered by whatsupppppp 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Paul, of course.
Mick looks like he died years ago but nobody told him. LOL.
2007-01-30 21:28:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋