dirac Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Hmmmm....Wasn't Jagger's androgynous quality widely remarked on, then and now? Footage of the Mickster undulating and bopping around onstage suggests many potential adjectives, but I'm not sure that "manly" is one of them. Whereas nobody ever regarded Lennon as a pretty boy no matter what he was wearing. But then to many eyes at the time both groups looked disturbingly unlike the masculine status quo..... Link to comment
sandik Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 I still call them Cuban heels -- much more comfortable (not to mention more stable) than narrower heels. Link to comment
Kathleen O'Connell Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Hmmmm....Wasn't Jagger's androgynous quality widely remarked on, then and now? Footage of the Mickster undulating and bopping around onstage suggests many potential adjectives, but I'm not sure that "manly" is one of them. Whereas nobody ever regarded Lennon as a pretty boy no matter what he was wearing. But then to many eyes at the time both groups looked disturbingly unlike the masculine status quo..... I suspect you're right that Jagger challenged traditional notions of what a masculine performing style was or should be. (And probably still does in some circles.) I always assumed his sexual potency was never in doubt, but that's an entirely different matter. I'm sure plenty of folks in my parents cohort couldn't figure out what Jagger's bevy of rapturous female fans saw in him. Link to comment
sandik Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Jagger is/was much more flamboyant than Lennon, almost as much of a chameleon as David Bowie (who just had a birthday). And yes, my parents couldn't make heads or tails out of him! Link to comment
Recommended Posts