Tell Me :
Talk
just adjust your limits. you're welcome.
Thanks Turd. These are all my own observations and opnions and totally open for debate.
I fixed the horrendous spelling and made a change, conceding that Mick actually sounded better an average on the B2B-No Security jaunt than the year before.
Voodoo Lounge was a step below Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle, I think. Not once in any show from 94-95 that I saw or any boot I've seen or heard did bring bring out the swsaggery growl - and he could have, the setlists were superior in 94/95, WHICH MADE IT SO FRUSTRATING! Hear I am, 20 years old, pumped as hell, reading on the 'interwebs' with windows 3.1 (lol) about the setlists - Monkey Man! Rocks Off! All Down the Line! Hot Stuff (dropped way too soon)! Beast of Burden! Stuff I'd been dreaming about seeing them do since seeing them in '89! His shortcuts that he took, and the step-below Steel Wheels in effort and fervour left me cold and skeptical for future tours. I was a cynic of my favourite band and 20 years old, and have been for the last 16 years in a way. But I still love them. Man, it is frustrating being a fan of these guys sometimes!
Maybe someone knows of an awesome Mick performance from the Voodoo Tour to prove me wrong? I remember thinking they released Stripped as a 'tasteful' way of avoiding another Flashpont type thing that would show the glaring lack of effort on Mick's part.
[thepowergoats.com]
Really? I am not so sure. If he had recorded the vocals for Following The River with the sound of his voice on Till The Next Time, I guess there would be no complaints here on this board with the song.
Specifically, listen to when he sings the line "I don't need no fancy food and I don't need no fancy wine". Other than his voice sounding a bit deeper these days, the style and overall sound is pretty similar.
Agree.The worst thing about those tours is that he still had some range but chose not to use it.Wembley 1990,the radio broadcast is a good example,low key,conservative singing.Converseley,i think he really embraced the Licks concept and went for notes on,for example Rocks Off and Angie that he hadn't done or been bothered to do in the 'modern' era.Plus,as you mentioned,on the club shows,particularly the US ones,he pushed it even further(Stray Cat Blues and That's How Strong My Love Is for example).Some early Bang shows show similar desire but by 2007 it had gone as had his pitch,those later shows are pretty much unlistenable.
BTW,enjoyed your two longer posts on this thread,spot on for the most part and a fun read
Many thanks for this survey, James!
With due respect, I think it was at least until they did "Stoned".
Does anyone know when this surgery was, even what decade?
Jagger's voice broke a lot of years ago, that's why Bill Wyman sings on in another land
The point of "Feel on Baby" holds true... all in all, if I had to use an exact timing when Jagger's vocals lost its greatness that is between TATTOO YOU and UNDERCOVER. The difference in his interpretation skills is almost unbelievable. I think Jagger was almost totally lost in the mid-80's ('83-'86) as his voice goes. I wonder what really happened - was there something physical problem or just totally being so out of it? As I said in my earlier post I think PRIMITIVE COOL was a slight step to better; he learned to use his rich voice more like an instrument of interpretation again, but he over-played it quite soon.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 18:48 by Doxa.
100% right. nothing to add!
i think it was a calculated step by mick to sound hip/current - and then it became a bad habit that grew out of his own control. it was like when dylan came up with this "up-singing" schtick on ballads several years ago (dylan fantatics know the term) - it got to the point where i don't even think he was aware of it and it was ruining entire performances. thankfully, it eventually abated in his case. not so with mick, as evidenced on his exile overdubs....i'm afraid the mannered stylings have become his new signature on a permanent basis....
It won't take long. It's (almost) all over now.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 21, 2010 22:35
Quote
Fan Since 1964Quote
71TeleQuote
Fan Since 1964
Thankfully enough Mick has decided to stop that awful growling singing style that he developed way back then. Who the hell want to hear him sing in that style in song after song. Not me!
No, Sir Jagger is at his best when he really sings!
He is doing a great job on vocals even up to this date. The feel in the words he sings and the tone is still great!
For god sake the is in his late 60's, what do you expect from him, that he shall sing like in the late 60's?
I don't really understand all the nagging people in here, who are bashing everything the members in the band do or do not do.
I question your fanhood of the Stones!
Ah, the old "you're not a fan if you don't unquestionably like every single thing they do" argument...
I can ofcourse question things that they have done, but it seems nowadays at this forum that everything they do is questioned to the limits and that bores me to death!
just adjust your limits. you're welcome.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Turd On The Run
()
Date: June 21, 2010 22:38
Great dedication and effort, jamesfdouglas. You make many excellent observations. I may not agree with all you write but your commitment and thoughtfulness cannot be questioned. Bravo.
When did it all change?
Yes. Exactly.
When did it all change?
Quote
Filip020169Quote
skipstone
It all started with the time of She's The Boss/Dancing In The Street/State Of Shock/Dirty Work.
So once again, Undercover is the cut off point. How funny.
For me, anyway.
...I think you're right, here...
Yes. Exactly.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
deuce
()
Date: June 22, 2010 02:35
Listen to Till The Next Time We Say Goodbye. He doesn't sound all that different there than he has in recent years.
I don't think it really became full blown until Bridges to Babylon. Sure, there are traces of it here and there before that, but that's when it really became locked in. I actually consider Voodoo Lounge to be his last great album vocally. There are some offenders on there like New Faces, but there's also a lot of cool Mick raspy yelling and on stuff like Baby Break It Down, he sounds so smooth and cool.
I don't think it really became full blown until Bridges to Babylon. Sure, there are traces of it here and there before that, but that's when it really became locked in. I actually consider Voodoo Lounge to be his last great album vocally. There are some offenders on there like New Faces, but there's also a lot of cool Mick raspy yelling and on stuff like Baby Break It Down, he sounds so smooth and cool.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: June 22, 2010 03:16
Quote
Turd On The Run
Great dedication and effort, jamesfdouglas. You make many excellent observations. I may not agree with all you write but your commitment and thoughtfulness cannot be questioned. Bravo.
Thanks Turd. These are all my own observations and opnions and totally open for debate.
I fixed the horrendous spelling and made a change, conceding that Mick actually sounded better an average on the B2B-No Security jaunt than the year before.
Voodoo Lounge was a step below Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle, I think. Not once in any show from 94-95 that I saw or any boot I've seen or heard did bring bring out the swsaggery growl - and he could have, the setlists were superior in 94/95, WHICH MADE IT SO FRUSTRATING! Hear I am, 20 years old, pumped as hell, reading on the 'interwebs' with windows 3.1 (lol) about the setlists - Monkey Man! Rocks Off! All Down the Line! Hot Stuff (dropped way too soon)! Beast of Burden! Stuff I'd been dreaming about seeing them do since seeing them in '89! His shortcuts that he took, and the step-below Steel Wheels in effort and fervour left me cold and skeptical for future tours. I was a cynic of my favourite band and 20 years old, and have been for the last 16 years in a way. But I still love them. Man, it is frustrating being a fan of these guys sometimes!
Maybe someone knows of an awesome Mick performance from the Voodoo Tour to prove me wrong? I remember thinking they released Stripped as a 'tasteful' way of avoiding another Flashpont type thing that would show the glaring lack of effort on Mick's part.
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: June 22, 2010 03:17
Quote
deuce
Listen to Till The Next Time We Say Goodbye. He doesn't sound all that different there than he has in recent years.
Really? I am not so sure. If he had recorded the vocals for Following The River with the sound of his voice on Till The Next Time, I guess there would be no complaints here on this board with the song.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: June 22, 2010 04:29
....it ain't "new" Mick if he's been singing like this since 1985....and while we're at it shouldn't the same question be asked of KR...did he cross the rubicon with his last solo effort?....
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
deuce
()
Date: June 22, 2010 05:20
Quote
alimenteQuote
deuce
Listen to Till The Next Time We Say Goodbye. He doesn't sound all that different there than he has in recent years.
Really? I am not so sure. If he had recorded the vocals for Following The River with the sound of his voice on Till The Next Time, I guess there would be no complaints here on this board with the song.
Specifically, listen to when he sings the line "I don't need no fancy food and I don't need no fancy wine". Other than his voice sounding a bit deeper these days, the style and overall sound is pretty similar.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
still ill
()
Date: June 22, 2010 09:32
Quote
jamesfdouglas
Voodoo Lounge was a step below Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle, I think. Not once in any show from 94-95 that I saw or any boot I've seen or heard did bring bring out the swsaggery growl - and he could have, the setlists were superior in 94/95, WHICH MADE IT SO FRUSTRATING! Hear I am, 20 years old, pumped as hell, reading on the 'interwebs' with windows 3.1 (lol) about the setlists - Monkey Man! Rocks Off! All Down the Line! Hot Stuff (dropped way too soon)! Beast of Burden! Stuff I'd been dreaming about seeing them do since seeing them in '89! His shortcuts that he took, and the step-below Steel Wheels in effort and fervour left me cold and skeptical for future tours. I was a cynic of my favourite band and 20 years old, and have been for the last 16 years in a way. But I still love them. Man, it is frustrating being a fan of these guys sometimes!
Maybe someone knows of an awesome Mick performance from the Voodoo Tour to prove me wrong? I remember thinking they released Stripped as a 'tasteful' way of avoiding another Flashpont type thing that would show the glaring lack of effort on Mick's part.
Agree.The worst thing about those tours is that he still had some range but chose not to use it.Wembley 1990,the radio broadcast is a good example,low key,conservative singing.Converseley,i think he really embraced the Licks concept and went for notes on,for example Rocks Off and Angie that he hadn't done or been bothered to do in the 'modern' era.Plus,as you mentioned,on the club shows,particularly the US ones,he pushed it even further(Stray Cat Blues and That's How Strong My Love Is for example).Some early Bang shows show similar desire but by 2007 it had gone as had his pitch,those later shows are pretty much unlistenable.
BTW,enjoyed your two longer posts on this thread,spot on for the most part and a fun read
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: June 22, 2010 11:03
Come on was the breakpoint.........since that moment, i do appreciatte his effort, but nothing is as it used to be..........
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: June 22, 2010 12:04
First, there is no "bad" Mick Jagger. There never has been one: only a "good" Jagger and a "absolutely fantastic" Jagger.
That said, the Rubicon is definitely Steel Wheels, and in particular the ballads on that album. Wild Horses on Stripped is the best example of this new way of over interpreting the lyrics. It was something he never did before SW.
Starting from the 40licks singles he turned back to a more starightforward singing also an ballads.
C
That said, the Rubicon is definitely Steel Wheels, and in particular the ballads on that album. Wild Horses on Stripped is the best example of this new way of over interpreting the lyrics. It was something he never did before SW.
Starting from the 40licks singles he turned back to a more starightforward singing also an ballads.
C
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 22, 2010 19:38
Quote
jamesfdouglas
I suppose a post on his live vocals through the years doesn't derail the topic after all. Now I'm basing this primarily on boots, clips and live ablums (trying best to ignore so many heavy overdubs). This is a bit harder to do though, since the size of the venue, length of the actual tour and so many things socailly happening around them, the variables are endless - until the Vegas era of course, more on that later. So here we go...
1964-1968 = Like a Mick - most tv/film appearances during this era show Mick singing basically like he does on the record. Any time he's off, it's clearly due to excitement and youthful energy. This is when it was basically just the 5 of them (6 incl. Ian). In concerts (not tv shows) the band plays with the Geroge Lucas technique of 'faster, more intense'.
1969-1970 = More than Just a PA Mick. As we know, this was the first tour to cart around huge speakers, etc - so the band could actually hear themselves - which is SO IMPORTANT, and crucial for the singer! It is also where Mick started to finally change things up, and sing things differently than the recorded version. Take Sympathy for the Devil from Rock and Roll Circus - it's pretty damn close to the record. On Ya-Yas - the band changed the song, and Mick followed suit. It was the first time the sound of the band was locked, from start to finish, a differnt kind of tour, and Mick carrying it out - although I must say, he did stick to the whole 'macho black' voice a lot, and always seemed to speak with a southern American accent in between songs a lot!
1971 - Somebody get Mick some tea and honey please.
1972-1973 - Rip This Voice Mick. Pushing his voice to the LIMIT!!! When just listening to Mick on some of the well-known boots from the era - you can hear a LOT of gasping, lots of staccotta moments - especially during the 'Rip this Joint/JJ Flash/SFM encore. He's barely singing at all but flailing about so much like someone being electrocuted! His growls are definitely intact here, but by the time he gets to a slower number (ie, Sweet Virginia), there's still so many "Wwwwwwooooooo Hooooooo's" because he can barely contain himself - giving SO MUCH energy he's sweating so much it looks like he fell in a swimming pool.
1975-1976 = Funny Accent Time Mick. Okay, now Mick is Jamaican. Oh wait, now he's Cookie Monster. Oh wait, now he's... what did he just sing? What was he doing here? "Owwwbegga.... Owwwbegga.... Wannateyou wurpa-AHH YEAHHHHH" Oooooh, he's singing 'Heartbreaker'. Was he trying to out-sing himself from last time, to hide the gaping hole left by Taylor's absence? Was he trying to make Ronnie giggle? So many questions. One thing's for sure, this live era over-all is the one I've paid the least attention to.
1977 = Keith of course is Completely Straight Mick. Love the Toronto El Macombo stuff!!!
1978 = Mick Rules. Hound Dog... The upper register voice in the second verse of Honkey Tonk - the Jagger twang, the power... You know, the more I think about it, the more I find this the quinessential live Mick voice! Sure the SNL performance his voice was SHOT - but that was one gig. Wouldn't this tour make a killer live album! May not be the band's best tour - but Mick was ON FIRE!!!
1979 = never heard the Oshawa tapes. Like '77 though, it's cool that the only dates that year were in Canada!
1981 = Micka-Cola Mick - All of his power is coming from the throat since his nose was so obvioulsy plugged up. The manic running and jumping with his 'indoor skiing' habit made for a grunty voice that still has the range and energy, but the sound was way off - under enuncating everything (the opposite problem happens in the studio 20 years later). Plus the band playing everything so damned FAST... wow! Makes for a highly entertaining concert film, but man - his voice here is one of the reasons why I collect very little from this tour (much like 75-76).
1982 = Mick Discovers Kleenex. Much Better.
1985 = Man that Live Aid performance cooked! No tour here, just someone determined to kick a lot of ass! Only Freddy Mercury and Bono surpassed this amazing performance - the fire and fury in his voice is clear. Hard to imaging that 3 years later we get...
1988 = Wake Up Mick. I bought a boot for Japan '88. What the hell? He's barely there, sounds depressed! Mumbling through classics, I can't get though most tapes of this or the Australlian tour. Not worth a damn to this Mick-centric fan!
1989-1990 = CEO Mick. The Vegas era Mick started off with the biggest bang (ha ha). His modern voice starts here, singing in key for the most part. Notably absent though is his growl and swagger. This is an over-professional performer now. Fully immersed in the production value of the show, everything is the same, every night, even down to his arrow-shooting move in Tumbling Dice. He does his job here fine, even hitting those biting notes now and then (more so in Japan where travel wasn't interfering with their rest.
1993 = Mick's Last Hurrah. This is the last show where we ever hear that swaggery growl. I was so jacked seeing this before the VL tour, thinking Mick was gonna whip out his vintage voice again.
1994-1997 = Come on Mick - at least smile or something. Same voice as Steel Wheels, only sounding weirder each tour. He's really starting to take glaring shortcuts now; Rocks Off - eesh!! Moments of awesomeness get rarer. The new material in particular sounds weak and uninspired, save Out of Control. Stripped suffers all over the place, he's sounding creaky now. Actually the B2B tour for Mick was slightly better than VL.
2002-2003 = Motions Mick - a step down from the last tour, and now the band's followed him down. His range seems to be down to one octave now, only pulling out 'decent' vocal stuff in the clubs. This is where my collectiong boots ends. What's the point?
2005-2007 = Enough, Mick. I think it was around 2006 where Mick is starting to do stuff like singing in the wrong key, or barely even trying. I can't remember the boot, but I think it was in japan - he sings Gimmie Shelter in the wrong key. I felt a bit sick, is this really happening??? The decline had been slow, starting in '89, almost like he set up a 20-year plan to facilitate their aging. Go ahead, listen to Jumpin' Jack Flash on Shine a Light. Would you play that to a Stones newbie to show them how great Mick is? Me neither.
2010+ = Mick?? So what next? What are we to expect? I hope he stops the off-key-winded-sounding from the start voice and just sings next time.
Many thanks for this survey, James!
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 22, 2010 20:42
Quote
KeithNacho
Come on was the breakpoint.........since that moment, i do appreciatte his effort, but nothing is as it used to be..........
With due respect, I think it was at least until they did "Stoned".
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 22, 2010 21:24
Heh heh:
1964-1973 The Mick Jagger we all know and love, on record of course and live possibly better. Live he was very aggressive, very hard singing.
1975-1977 Recording wise he seems to be branching out, for a lack of a better term, doing some different things. Live he devolved to mostly a howl and very sloppy, no concern for timing overall.
1978 A more whip cracking style of singing on the record and live he was on fire but perhaps too much punk-ishness going on.
1981 - 1982 On record very good stuff but live, a lot of grunting, sitting on the toilet singing and some actual singing albeit in a grunting tone (Time Is On My Side, Imagination from Still Life are good examples). Nothing spectacular but overall better than the 75/76 singing.
1989-1990 Live, what I guess one could consider 'normal Mick' singing to a degree, nothing really spectacular, just solid mostly. In a way, what we would expect I guess, if that makes sense - normal Mick Jagger. No grunting really, no howling, but some gutteral singing ala Dirty Work. Forcing it here and there.
1994-1995 Live a wink back at 75/76 singing but more relaxed with moments of brilliant Mick. A combo of 75/76 with 89/90 in a way.
1997-99 Possibly the best Mick live since...well, the early 1970s maybe - more mature, more controlled, not so over-affected.
2002-2003 Pretty good live singing, very similar to the 97-99 Mick, serious, well delivered, not over doing it, in some instances pretty faithful to the original studio recordings (Monkey Man for example).
2005-2007 Regular ol' Mick singing live, right down the middle with seriousness as well as over the top affected singing but sounding a bit tight, constrained almost (maybe even too nasal sounding). Too many yips and la la's (like the crap on Tumbling Dice from Shine A Light) and whatever else and too much 'alright' and 'come on' used to guide a band that is not...aware of the changes after all these years?
1964-1973 The Mick Jagger we all know and love, on record of course and live possibly better. Live he was very aggressive, very hard singing.
1975-1977 Recording wise he seems to be branching out, for a lack of a better term, doing some different things. Live he devolved to mostly a howl and very sloppy, no concern for timing overall.
1978 A more whip cracking style of singing on the record and live he was on fire but perhaps too much punk-ishness going on.
1981 - 1982 On record very good stuff but live, a lot of grunting, sitting on the toilet singing and some actual singing albeit in a grunting tone (Time Is On My Side, Imagination from Still Life are good examples). Nothing spectacular but overall better than the 75/76 singing.
1989-1990 Live, what I guess one could consider 'normal Mick' singing to a degree, nothing really spectacular, just solid mostly. In a way, what we would expect I guess, if that makes sense - normal Mick Jagger. No grunting really, no howling, but some gutteral singing ala Dirty Work. Forcing it here and there.
1994-1995 Live a wink back at 75/76 singing but more relaxed with moments of brilliant Mick. A combo of 75/76 with 89/90 in a way.
1997-99 Possibly the best Mick live since...well, the early 1970s maybe - more mature, more controlled, not so over-affected.
2002-2003 Pretty good live singing, very similar to the 97-99 Mick, serious, well delivered, not over doing it, in some instances pretty faithful to the original studio recordings (Monkey Man for example).
2005-2007 Regular ol' Mick singing live, right down the middle with seriousness as well as over the top affected singing but sounding a bit tight, constrained almost (maybe even too nasal sounding). Too many yips and la la's (like the crap on Tumbling Dice from Shine A Light) and whatever else and too much 'alright' and 'come on' used to guide a band that is not...aware of the changes after all these years?
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 23, 2010 01:08
I've heard took vocal lessons at some point. Does anyone know if this is true?
I'm wondering if that vocal training led him to start singing in this newer style?
I'm wondering if that vocal training led him to start singing in this newer style?
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: June 23, 2010 01:11
He's had trainers that help him with his live performing so he can sing and (sigh) keep running around. I don't know about other straight vocal lessons for his studio over-afflections. Could be true, who knows?
[thepowergoats.com]
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: June 23, 2010 01:39
He's had a vocal coach for quite a few years now, before SHINE A LIGHT. It may be to help him run and sing at the same time and not get winded, as someone just said but I think it may have been so that he could still hit the high notes. I recall seeing him practicing the scales, and I believe this is included in SHINE A LIGHT. His falsetto is still great and I don't think his voice has thinned at all; I do agree that he over-enunciates at times so that's why I concluded it might have something to do with the training he received from the coach. Maybe Mick has had a coach for a long time, we might not be privy to this info. As was mentioned, I also noticed the change from STEEL WHEELS on to the present.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: June 23, 2010 01:56
I was completely thrown when I first watched "Let's Spend The Night Together"...I thought his voice was radically different than I've ever heard it. It was a lower register, incredibly deep and very thick. It was night a day to me (and still is). Yet, on "Tattoo You"..it was relatively the same Mick from previous albums. But live...his voice was always noticeably different to me.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: June 23, 2010 02:51
You're not imagining things, The 81 tour has Mick using a voice that not only sounds waaaay coked up, but his throat sounds drier and raspier than any tour before or since. Too bad it wasn't sponsored by Vicks instead of Jovan. Bet those yellow tights smelled wonderful though...
[thepowergoats.com]
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: June 23, 2010 03:12
Cool James...so I'm not going crazy.
Funny, even at the young age I saw the film I guessed that Mick was probably chock full of coke.
Funny, even at the young age I saw the film I guessed that Mick was probably chock full of coke.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 23, 2010 10:19
Quote
Jelly Face Joe
As I recall, Mick had some issues with his nasal septum. After the surgery, his voice lost it's depth. It is more of a physical problem than an age related one.
Does anyone know when this surgery was, even what decade?
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 23, 2010 11:07
Very good points here, and the issue itself is a point of interest. I think it is not possible to show an exact timing or record of Rubicon, but it was more like a process that took some years.
There is one record not mentioned here yet that I think enjoys a crucial role here. That is PRIMTIVE COOL. We know that for that record Jagger consciously trained his singing by being pushed by Dave Stewart. I think the results are innovative, fresh and good - listen for example, "Say You Will". I think he then worked a new technical Jagger voice we would know from Stones records and live shows from then on. Especially the nasal voice and phrasing of "Party Doll" is a voice that has been very much used by him ever since.
But like I said, I think Jagger sings very well throughout PRIMITIVE COOLL and it is a clear improvement to his mid-80's over-barking/shouting voice that didn't have any nuances in it. But I think in the following years, little by little, he started to be too "technical" with his voice, and the result started sound more like a routine, "only form, no substance". Someone mentioned STRIPPED "Wild Horses" - that's very good simple of the past-PRIMITIVE COOL voice in action. I still don't know what to think of it. In one way it sounds good, but in another, it just full of "easy" tricks, and the guy almost whispers the lyrics, in compared to the way he used to sing his breath away.
The worst it is when used in strong rockers where he ends up just miming singing. For example, I have found his recent reading of "Jumping Jack Flash" almost unlistenable.
As far as the studio work goes, since VOODOO LOUNGE Jagger's been so full of his own cliches in singing that it is sometimes even comical how much he over-stresses the supposed color of his voice. GODDESS album is almost awful in this sense, and yes, the EXILE out-takes do suffer from the same problem.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 17:48 by Doxa.
There is one record not mentioned here yet that I think enjoys a crucial role here. That is PRIMTIVE COOL. We know that for that record Jagger consciously trained his singing by being pushed by Dave Stewart. I think the results are innovative, fresh and good - listen for example, "Say You Will". I think he then worked a new technical Jagger voice we would know from Stones records and live shows from then on. Especially the nasal voice and phrasing of "Party Doll" is a voice that has been very much used by him ever since.
But like I said, I think Jagger sings very well throughout PRIMITIVE COOLL and it is a clear improvement to his mid-80's over-barking/shouting voice that didn't have any nuances in it. But I think in the following years, little by little, he started to be too "technical" with his voice, and the result started sound more like a routine, "only form, no substance". Someone mentioned STRIPPED "Wild Horses" - that's very good simple of the past-PRIMITIVE COOL voice in action. I still don't know what to think of it. In one way it sounds good, but in another, it just full of "easy" tricks, and the guy almost whispers the lyrics, in compared to the way he used to sing his breath away.
The worst it is when used in strong rockers where he ends up just miming singing. For example, I have found his recent reading of "Jumping Jack Flash" almost unlistenable.
As far as the studio work goes, since VOODOO LOUNGE Jagger's been so full of his own cliches in singing that it is sometimes even comical how much he over-stresses the supposed color of his voice. GODDESS album is almost awful in this sense, and yes, the EXILE out-takes do suffer from the same problem.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 17:48 by Doxa.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: June 23, 2010 13:17
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
KeithNacho
Come on was the breakpoint.........since that moment, i do appreciatte his effort, but nothing is as it used to be..........
With due respect, I think it was at least until they did "Stoned".
Jagger's voice broke a lot of years ago, that's why Bill Wyman sings on in another land
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 23, 2010 17:37
Doxa, I left out Primitive Cool in my When Mick Jumped The Rubicon because he had already started in that time I listed (Dancing In The Streets-She's The Boss) with some goofy singing.
You're correct though about Primitive Cool, the differences throughout the album.
He sounds horrendous in Let's Work (I'm STILL astounded that that was even encouraged yet alone allowed to be released). He sounds more normal in Throwaway, Kow Tow and even Peace For The Wicked. Party Doll is horrendous. Even the title track is awful.
I get that perhaps he was doing something different, that he wanted to change his style. It's just that change is not always good when it's not good. It doesn't help that he had Jeff Beck farting all over the songs to boot. Nothing says Bad 1980s Sound as Beck playing on Jagger's solo songs.
You're correct though about Primitive Cool, the differences throughout the album.
He sounds horrendous in Let's Work (I'm STILL astounded that that was even encouraged yet alone allowed to be released). He sounds more normal in Throwaway, Kow Tow and even Peace For The Wicked. Party Doll is horrendous. Even the title track is awful.
I get that perhaps he was doing something different, that he wanted to change his style. It's just that change is not always good when it's not good. It doesn't help that he had Jeff Beck farting all over the songs to boot. Nothing says Bad 1980s Sound as Beck playing on Jagger's solo songs.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 23, 2010 17:40
primitive cool is the very embodiment of "unlistenable," mostly cos of mick's ridick vocals.
but, as i mentioned earlier, the issue of over-enunciation and annoying mannered vocals goes back to at least '83 - listen to feel on baby and you'll hear early warning signs....
but, as i mentioned earlier, the issue of over-enunciation and annoying mannered vocals goes back to at least '83 - listen to feel on baby and you'll hear early warning signs....
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 23, 2010 17:47
Shine A Light from Shine A Light, Mick sounds like he's got a clothes pin over his noise.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 23, 2010 18:05
Quote
StonesTod
primitive cool is the very embodiment of "unlistenable," mostly cos of mick's ridick vocals.
but, as i mentioned earlier, the issue of over-enunciation and annoying mannered vocals goes back to at least '83 - listen to feel on baby and you'll hear early warning signs....
The point of "Feel on Baby" holds true... all in all, if I had to use an exact timing when Jagger's vocals lost its greatness that is between TATTOO YOU and UNDERCOVER. The difference in his interpretation skills is almost unbelievable. I think Jagger was almost totally lost in the mid-80's ('83-'86) as his voice goes. I wonder what really happened - was there something physical problem or just totally being so out of it? As I said in my earlier post I think PRIMITIVE COOL was a slight step to better; he learned to use his rich voice more like an instrument of interpretation again, but he over-played it quite soon.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 18:48 by Doxa.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
guitarbastard
()
Date: June 23, 2010 18:07
Quote
skipstone
It all started with the time of She's The Boss/Dancing In The Street/State Of Shock/Dirty Work.
So once again, Undercover is the cut off point. How funny.
For me, anyway.
100% right. nothing to add!
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Tantekäthe
()
Date: June 23, 2010 18:32
In the end it is all about personal preferences, I think. No one would deny that in the 1981-1989 period there were significant changes in MJ's vocal style from album to album but not necessary always to the worse. For example, I consider some of his deliveries on Under Cover nothing short of excellent and unique (listen to his sleazy growl in Tie You Up!) and his overall performance on Dirty Work quite a bit underrated (not a smooth listen at all, but the anger and urge in his singing just fit the song material perfectly).
The obvious limitations in his vocal range (as opposed to "manners" and fashions he adapted his singing to from time to time) are something that kicked in not earlier than in the course of the nineties and came into full effect in the ABB era.
By the way, "Ruby Tuesday" and "Lady Jane" have some of his most "over-enunciated" and "over-affectuated" vocals ever, and these are from 1966...
The obvious limitations in his vocal range (as opposed to "manners" and fashions he adapted his singing to from time to time) are something that kicked in not earlier than in the course of the nineties and came into full effect in the ABB era.
By the way, "Ruby Tuesday" and "Lady Jane" have some of his most "over-enunciated" and "over-affectuated" vocals ever, and these are from 1966...
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 23, 2010 19:12
Quote
DoxaQuote
StonesTod
primitive cool is the very embodiment of "unlistenable," mostly cos of mick's ridick vocals.
but, as i mentioned earlier, the issue of over-enunciation and annoying mannered vocals goes back to at least '83 - listen to feel on baby and you'll hear early warning signs....
The point of "Feel on Baby" holds true... all in all, if I had to use an exact timing when Jagger's vocals lost its greatness that is between TATTOO YOU and UNDERCOVER. The difference in his interpretation skills is almost unbelievable. I think Jagger was almost totally lost in the mid-80's ('83-'86) as his voice goes. I wonder what really happened - was there something physical problem or just totally being so out of it? As I said in my earlier post I think PRIMITIVE COOL was a slight step to better; he learned to use his rich voice more like an instrument of interpretation again, but he over-played it quite soon.
- Doxa
i think it was a calculated step by mick to sound hip/current - and then it became a bad habit that grew out of his own control. it was like when dylan came up with this "up-singing" schtick on ballads several years ago (dylan fantatics know the term) - it got to the point where i don't even think he was aware of it and it was ruining entire performances. thankfully, it eventually abated in his case. not so with mick, as evidenced on his exile overdubs....i'm afraid the mannered stylings have become his new signature on a permanent basis....
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 23, 2010 19:14
Quote
StonesTodQuote
DoxaQuote
StonesTod
primitive cool is the very embodiment of "unlistenable," mostly cos of mick's ridick vocals.
but, as i mentioned earlier, the issue of over-enunciation and annoying mannered vocals goes back to at least '83 - listen to feel on baby and you'll hear early warning signs....
The point of "Feel on Baby" holds true... all in all, if I had to use an exact timing when Jagger's vocals lost its greatness that is between TATTOO YOU and UNDERCOVER. The difference in his interpretation skills is almost unbelievable. I think Jagger was almost totally lost in the mid-80's ('83-'86) as his voice goes. I wonder what really happened - was there something physical problem or just totally being so out of it? As I said in my earlier post I think PRIMITIVE COOL was a slight step to better; he learned to use his rich voice more like an instrument of interpretation again, but he over-played it quite soon.
- Doxa
i think it was a calculated step by mick to sound hip/current - and then it became a bad habit that grew out of his own control. it was like when dylan came up with this "up-singing" schtick on ballads several years ago (dylan fantatics know the term) - it got to the point where i don't even think he was aware of it and it was ruining entire performances. thankfully, it eventually abated in his case. not so with mick, as evidenced on his exile overdubs....i'm afraid the mannered stylings have become his new signature on a permanent basis....
It won't take long. It's (almost) all over now.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
dishevelmentblues , donvis , EggersBand , exilestones , franzk , gastonl74 , HopeYouGuessMyName , johnnythunders , liddas , MJAGGER123 , MonkeyMan2000 , NashvilleBlues , piotrek , Spud , stonesurvive , Torsten
Guests:
1094
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10