Tell Me :
Talk
That's true... in a way it is a wonder we still are able to discuss his voice in the first place - that it actually exists still...
Actually, I think this thread is intersting because it is a way to define when Jagger really mattered as a singer and when any longer not (and turning a kind of safe and sure cartoon entertainer). Personally I don't really care - as far as artistic reasons are concerned - what has happened in the last 20 years or so, and I take Mick and the band being in a well-deserved half-retired over-time for a long now. And I hate the eternal "isn't he wonderful for his age" argument that seems to be loved by many Stones and Mick fans nowadays. Once upon time the Stones fought against age-racism. Now it looks like that they or some of their fans use the age card.
It's a tough game in the top: you play it or you don't. And if you play, you will estimated from the base of your performance, no any excuses - age or whatever - can be used. Jagger, if anyone, knows this.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 19:47 by Doxa.
he said time won't wait for him....
please check again
What did you expect then? To say "hey, I'm sixty-something and look how fit I am for my age!". No, he wisely says nothing but I am sure he knows that one of the biggest reasons why people come to see the Stones is the freak of nature called Mick Jagger who defies the aging process. Look almost any review of SHINE A LIGHT or of their recent concerts, that's the central issue which is pointed out. Do you think Jagger does not know this, how he is viewed and seen? Of course, he does. That is the product Mick Jagger Show sells to millions. Rolling Stones catalog of 30-40-50 years old hits plus the man in his fifties/sixties/seventies who also acts and looks like 30-40-50 years ago. I think almost all Jagger does as a performer is "keeping up the appearances", try to remain or to give an impression of that ageless peter pan-figure (the way he uses his voice is a part of the deal). I think all the energy he uses is put there: to remain as familiar, ageless Jagger as ever. I think the reason for the artistic downhill of the Stones in the last 20 years has much to do with Mick's policy to show and justify that "nothing has really changed". Jagger simply refuses to change, to mature up. Nothing wrong with that. But it is the age card played very well (at least in commercial terms).
And it works: for example, look the reactions here at IORR for his appearance with U2 in that whatever party it was last year. Yeah, he was impressive. For his age.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 21:08 by Doxa.
the world's oldest-living teenager...somebody's gotta have the title....
I'm sorry for Mick, but that title is already in possession of the famous Dutch writer Harry Mulisch, who's absolute age is 18. Today his relative age is 82 years.
can he dance or sing or anything?
He certainly can "or anything".
I am bit late to comment, but better later than never: very well put!
- Doxa
I believe that title goes to Dick Clark
Yep, actually nothing should change, but it's too late. Another minute has gone.
you could try listening to hear it, too...that's worked well for me in the past.
jeroen
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:
MartinB
()
Date: June 23, 2010 19:33
I wish Keith's guitar playing were as good as Mick's singing these days.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 23, 2010 19:43
Quote
kleermakerQuote
StonesTod
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.
That's true... in a way it is a wonder we still are able to discuss his voice in the first place - that it actually exists still...
Actually, I think this thread is intersting because it is a way to define when Jagger really mattered as a singer and when any longer not (and turning a kind of safe and sure cartoon entertainer). Personally I don't really care - as far as artistic reasons are concerned - what has happened in the last 20 years or so, and I take Mick and the band being in a well-deserved half-retired over-time for a long now. And I hate the eternal "isn't he wonderful for his age" argument that seems to be loved by many Stones and Mick fans nowadays. Once upon time the Stones fought against age-racism. Now it looks like that they or some of their fans use the age card.
It's a tough game in the top: you play it or you don't. And if you play, you will estimated from the base of your performance, no any excuses - age or whatever - can be used. Jagger, if anyone, knows this.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 19:47 by Doxa.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 23, 2010 20:10
Mick hasn't said anything about age as far as I'm aware!
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 23, 2010 20:13
Quote
skipstone
Mick hasn't said anything about age as far as I'm aware!
he said time won't wait for him....
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 23, 2010 20:15
Last time I checked age wasn't not spelled t-i-m-e...
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 23, 2010 20:17
Quote
skipstone
Last time I checked age wasn't not spelled t-i-m-e...
please check again
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 23, 2010 20:38
Only Roger and Pete hoped they died before they got old.
I do think Mick said something about rather being dead, than singing Satisfaction at age 40.
Technically, he turned 40 in 1983, and probably did not sing it THAT YEAR, as they weren't touring.
I do think Mick said something about rather being dead, than singing Satisfaction at age 40.
Technically, he turned 40 in 1983, and probably did not sing it THAT YEAR, as they weren't touring.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 23, 2010 20:56
Quote
skipstone
Mick hasn't said anything about age as far as I'm aware!
What did you expect then? To say "hey, I'm sixty-something and look how fit I am for my age!". No, he wisely says nothing but I am sure he knows that one of the biggest reasons why people come to see the Stones is the freak of nature called Mick Jagger who defies the aging process. Look almost any review of SHINE A LIGHT or of their recent concerts, that's the central issue which is pointed out. Do you think Jagger does not know this, how he is viewed and seen? Of course, he does. That is the product Mick Jagger Show sells to millions. Rolling Stones catalog of 30-40-50 years old hits plus the man in his fifties/sixties/seventies who also acts and looks like 30-40-50 years ago. I think almost all Jagger does as a performer is "keeping up the appearances", try to remain or to give an impression of that ageless peter pan-figure (the way he uses his voice is a part of the deal). I think all the energy he uses is put there: to remain as familiar, ageless Jagger as ever. I think the reason for the artistic downhill of the Stones in the last 20 years has much to do with Mick's policy to show and justify that "nothing has really changed". Jagger simply refuses to change, to mature up. Nothing wrong with that. But it is the age card played very well (at least in commercial terms).
And it works: for example, look the reactions here at IORR for his appearance with U2 in that whatever party it was last year. Yeah, he was impressive. For his age.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 21:08 by Doxa.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 23, 2010 20:59
Quote
DoxaQuote
skipstone
Mick hasn't said anything about age as far as I'm aware!
What did you expect then? To say "hey, I'm sixty-something and look how fit I am for my age!". No, he wisely says nothing but I am sure he knows that one of the biggest reasons why people come to see the Stones is the freak of nature called Mick Jagger who defies the aging process. Look almost any review of SHINE A LIGHT or oftheir concerts that's the central issue that is pointed out. Do you think Jagger does not know this, how he is wieved? Of course, he knows. That is the product Mick Jagger Show sells to millions. Rolling Stones catalog of 30-40 years old hits plus the man in his fifties/sixties/seventies who also acts and looks like 30-40 years ago. I think almost all Jagger does as a performer is "keeping up the appearances", try to remain that ageless peter pan-figure (the way he uses his voice is a part of the deal). I think all the energy he uses is put there: to remain as familiar, ageless Jagger as ever. I think the reason for the artistic downhill of the Stones in the last 20 years has much to do with Mick's policy to show and justify that "nothing has really changed". Jagger simply refuses to change, to mature up. Nothing wrong with that. But it is the age card played very well.
And it works: for example, look the reactions here at IORR for his appearance with U2 in that whatever party it was last year. Yeah, he was impressive. For his age.
the world's oldest-living teenager...somebody's gotta have the title....
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 23, 2010 21:07
Quote
StonesTodQuote
DoxaQuote
skipstone
Mick hasn't said anything about age as far as I'm aware!
What did you expect then? To say "hey, I'm sixty-something and look how fit I am for my age!". No, he wisely says nothing but I am sure he knows that one of the biggest reasons why people come to see the Stones is the freak of nature called Mick Jagger who defies the aging process. Look almost any review of SHINE A LIGHT or oftheir concerts that's the central issue that is pointed out. Do you think Jagger does not know this, how he is wieved? Of course, he knows. That is the product Mick Jagger Show sells to millions. Rolling Stones catalog of 30-40 years old hits plus the man in his fifties/sixties/seventies who also acts and looks like 30-40 years ago. I think almost all Jagger does as a performer is "keeping up the appearances", try to remain that ageless peter pan-figure (the way he uses his voice is a part of the deal). I think all the energy he uses is put there: to remain as familiar, ageless Jagger as ever. I think the reason for the artistic downhill of the Stones in the last 20 years has much to do with Mick's policy to show and justify that "nothing has really changed". Jagger simply refuses to change, to mature up. Nothing wrong with that. But it is the age card played very well.
And it works: for example, look the reactions here at IORR for his appearance with U2 in that whatever party it was last year. Yeah, he was impressive. For his age.
the world's oldest-living teenager...somebody's gotta have the title....
I'm sorry for Mick, but that title is already in possession of the famous Dutch writer Harry Mulisch, who's absolute age is 18. Today his relative age is 82 years.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 23, 2010 21:11
Quote
kleermakerQuote
StonesTodQuote
DoxaQuote
skipstone
Mick hasn't said anything about age as far as I'm aware!
What did you expect then? To say "hey, I'm sixty-something and look how fit I am for my age!". No, he wisely says nothing but I am sure he knows that one of the biggest reasons why people come to see the Stones is the freak of nature called Mick Jagger who defies the aging process. Look almost any review of SHINE A LIGHT or oftheir concerts that's the central issue that is pointed out. Do you think Jagger does not know this, how he is wieved? Of course, he knows. That is the product Mick Jagger Show sells to millions. Rolling Stones catalog of 30-40 years old hits plus the man in his fifties/sixties/seventies who also acts and looks like 30-40 years ago. I think almost all Jagger does as a performer is "keeping up the appearances", try to remain that ageless peter pan-figure (the way he uses his voice is a part of the deal). I think all the energy he uses is put there: to remain as familiar, ageless Jagger as ever. I think the reason for the artistic downhill of the Stones in the last 20 years has much to do with Mick's policy to show and justify that "nothing has really changed". Jagger simply refuses to change, to mature up. Nothing wrong with that. But it is the age card played very well.
And it works: for example, look the reactions here at IORR for his appearance with U2 in that whatever party it was last year. Yeah, he was impressive. For his age.
the world's oldest-living teenager...somebody's gotta have the title....
I'm sorry for Mick, but that title is already in possession of the famous Dutch writer Harry Mulisch, who's absolute age is 18. Today his relative age is 82 years.
can he dance or sing or anything?
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 23, 2010 21:14
Quote
StonesTodQuote
kleermakerQuote
StonesTodQuote
DoxaQuote
skipstone
Mick hasn't said anything about age as far as I'm aware!
What did you expect then? To say "hey, I'm sixty-something and look how fit I am for my age!". No, he wisely says nothing but I am sure he knows that one of the biggest reasons why people come to see the Stones is the freak of nature called Mick Jagger who defies the aging process. Look almost any review of SHINE A LIGHT or oftheir concerts that's the central issue that is pointed out. Do you think Jagger does not know this, how he is wieved? Of course, he knows. That is the product Mick Jagger Show sells to millions. Rolling Stones catalog of 30-40 years old hits plus the man in his fifties/sixties/seventies who also acts and looks like 30-40 years ago. I think almost all Jagger does as a performer is "keeping up the appearances", try to remain that ageless peter pan-figure (the way he uses his voice is a part of the deal). I think all the energy he uses is put there: to remain as familiar, ageless Jagger as ever. I think the reason for the artistic downhill of the Stones in the last 20 years has much to do with Mick's policy to show and justify that "nothing has really changed". Jagger simply refuses to change, to mature up. Nothing wrong with that. But it is the age card played very well.
And it works: for example, look the reactions here at IORR for his appearance with U2 in that whatever party it was last year. Yeah, he was impressive. For his age.
the world's oldest-living teenager...somebody's gotta have the title....
I'm sorry for Mick, but that title is already in possession of the famous Dutch writer Harry Mulisch, who's absolute age is 18. Today his relative age is 82 years.
can he dance or sing or anything?
He certainly can "or anything".
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 23, 2010 21:24
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
GazzaQuote
treaclefingers
can we not see glimpses of this earlier than 1985-86?
I'm gonna get pummeled for this, but what about, for example 'Let it Loose'?
best vocal of his entire career!
+1
I don't think the cut-off point is that clear to define for me, but we're just talking studio voice hear, right? However, Micks voice is a favourite topic of mine. I find myself thinking about it likely as much as some of you think about Keith's sounds.
1964-1965 = Baby Mick, hit or miss. trying to sound like a black American half the time on so many covers - fails as much as succeeds.
1966-1967 = Beatle Mick, better. As Jones colours up the textures and Keith and Mick write some more interesting stuff, there's a lot of stuff (especially Between the Buttons) where Mick's singing with an English accent, not even his!
1968-1973 = Best Mick. Bar-setting excellence
1974-1976 = Identity Crisis Mick. Mick switches vocal styles, nearly on every track on IORR & B&B.
1978-1983 = Very Close Second Best Mick. Deeper than the Taylor Years, apart from some silliness on Emotional Rescue, I love the blend of maturity and swagger here, especially on Tattoo You!
1985-1987 = Pass.
1989-1991 = Safe, unthreatening Mick. like his haircut at the time. He was a bit too professional here, lol. The over-all lack of swagger in his voice hurt the material somewhat. DAMN IT it's hard not to bring up his live voices which are just as up & down!
1993-94 = Last Hurrah Mick. I love Wandering Spirit. I think it's the best post-Tatoo You release. As much as my friends and I enjoyed it, this is when it started getting pretty easy to have too much fun listening to Mick. ie - Mother of a Man - unintentiaonlly hilarious!!! Almost cartoony, but i like fun with my music so it was totally forgivable, actually added to the enjoyment!
1997-2001 = Starting to Show Cracks Mick. Flip the switch, trying to hit the second "baby I'm a ready to goooooo" = sounds like his age is catching up a bit. Still his voice held up longer than Bono whose voice started doing this when he was 40.
2002-2005 = Really Mick? The over afflection and chiselling out every consanant almost feels strange to listen to. This is the same person from Exile??
2010 Mick = Yeah, Alright, Come On, Let's Do This Mick. I'm just glad he's still with us, still singing, still writing. I like the new tracks, yeah, his over-pronouncing is here, but it bothers me way, WAY less since the songs are actually GOOD!
I am bit late to comment, but better later than never: very well put!
- Doxa
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 24, 2010 00:00
Quote
StonesTodQuote
DoxaQuote
skipstone
Mick hasn't said anything about age as far as I'm aware!
What did you expect then? To say "hey, I'm sixty-something and look how fit I am for my age!". No, he wisely says nothing but I am sure he knows that one of the biggest reasons why people come to see the Stones is the freak of nature called Mick Jagger who defies the aging process. Look almost any review of SHINE A LIGHT or oftheir concerts that's the central issue that is pointed out. Do you think Jagger does not know this, how he is wieved? Of course, he knows. That is the product Mick Jagger Show sells to millions. Rolling Stones catalog of 30-40 years old hits plus the man in his fifties/sixties/seventies who also acts and looks like 30-40 years ago. I think almost all Jagger does as a performer is "keeping up the appearances", try to remain that ageless peter pan-figure (the way he uses his voice is a part of the deal). I think all the energy he uses is put there: to remain as familiar, ageless Jagger as ever. I think the reason for the artistic downhill of the Stones in the last 20 years has much to do with Mick's policy to show and justify that "nothing has really changed". Jagger simply refuses to change, to mature up. Nothing wrong with that. But it is the age card played very well.
And it works: for example, look the reactions here at IORR for his appearance with U2 in that whatever party it was last year. Yeah, he was impressive. For his age.
the world's oldest-living teenager...somebody's gotta have the title....
I believe that title goes to Dick Clark
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
Keefan
()
Date: June 24, 2010 00:26
This has been an excellent thread.
Even though Mick's voice has changed over the years, as well as his singing style, his sense of timing is as good as ever. and that's a big part of what makes him such a good rock'n'roll singer (and harp player too...he's still the world's best white harp player, IMO).
A few years ago Rolling Stone magazine had a feature where musicians discussed their favorite singers in RS's 'Top 100 Singers' list. Lenny Kravitz discussed Jagger, and said that while they were working on a project together (I guess it was 'God Gave Me Everything' ), Jagger was staying in a room directly under where Kravitz was staying. He said that every night he could hear Jagger doing vocal exercises to keep his voice in shape, for a considerable amount of time each evening.
I give Jagger major props for that, that's something that Bono, Robert Plant, and a lot of other aging singers obviously haven't done.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-24 00:27 by Keefan.
Even though Mick's voice has changed over the years, as well as his singing style, his sense of timing is as good as ever. and that's a big part of what makes him such a good rock'n'roll singer (and harp player too...he's still the world's best white harp player, IMO).
A few years ago Rolling Stone magazine had a feature where musicians discussed their favorite singers in RS's 'Top 100 Singers' list. Lenny Kravitz discussed Jagger, and said that while they were working on a project together (I guess it was 'God Gave Me Everything' ), Jagger was staying in a room directly under where Kravitz was staying. He said that every night he could hear Jagger doing vocal exercises to keep his voice in shape, for a considerable amount of time each evening.
I give Jagger major props for that, that's something that Bono, Robert Plant, and a lot of other aging singers obviously haven't done.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-24 00:27 by Keefan.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 24, 2010 00:47
Well, you actually don't know if Bono and whoever else has or has not done that. I would think they do. But that's just one person's observations. If Lenny could hear Mick, that tells you about Lenny, huh! One might think that as guitar players play a guitar throughout the day of a show and days without shows, one would sing too. It is an instrument. To maintain it requires constant work when it's constantly being used for two hours or so per show. Warming up, singing notes that aren't common, etc, keeps everything limber. Off tour, no need to really work it so much.
There are those who don't, I would think, because they have an old skool mentality of 'this is what you get'. Which is fine, really. Or they just don't need to (age, attitude, talent, they don't smoke, they do smoke, the drink, they don't drink, whatever). Like the Stones in the mid 1960s, you got what they were wearing on the streets on stage. They just wanted to play.
Obviously that's changed har harrrr.
There are those who don't, I would think, because they have an old skool mentality of 'this is what you get'. Which is fine, really. Or they just don't need to (age, attitude, talent, they don't smoke, they do smoke, the drink, they don't drink, whatever). Like the Stones in the mid 1960s, you got what they were wearing on the streets on stage. They just wanted to play.
Obviously that's changed har harrrr.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
RaahenTiikeri
()
Date: June 24, 2010 03:47
There's nothing bad in trying live 'forever young'(i think mick has done it excellent,good at least).There's nothing bad if big audiences loves to see freak of nature-jagger who gives impression of unchanged 40 years.Actually,for mick its been same for 40 years....he is musician,he is millionaire,he is slim,he is healthy,he gets beautiest women...
Stones stagelevel has gone lower than it was before(but i still like it)...but it would had gone lower even if mick was fat,diabetic and bypass surgered.
I like people who fights against time.I know truckdrivers whose firms are 50ys old..they maybe drives for 4 hours(or less,or more) in day...thats attitude.They try to prove for themselves that nothing changes.
I know 80 old private enterpriser who works for 20 hours in days in his smithy.He practically never sleep,he is always ready for orders from local industry.
i like my mothers 89 ys old aunt.She lives in house with only cold water and burns wood for heat.Sometimes she whine about her pains and condition but ithink she would die in day when she should leave her home(been home for over 60 years)
Stones stagelevel has gone lower than it was before(but i still like it)...but it would had gone lower even if mick was fat,diabetic and bypass surgered.
I like people who fights against time.I know truckdrivers whose firms are 50ys old..they maybe drives for 4 hours(or less,or more) in day...thats attitude.They try to prove for themselves that nothing changes.
I know 80 old private enterpriser who works for 20 hours in days in his smithy.He practically never sleep,he is always ready for orders from local industry.
i like my mothers 89 ys old aunt.She lives in house with only cold water and burns wood for heat.Sometimes she whine about her pains and condition but ithink she would die in day when she should leave her home(been home for over 60 years)
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 24, 2010 15:15
Quote
RaahenTiikeri
There's nothing bad in trying live 'forever young'(i think mick has done it excellent,good at least).There's nothing bad if big audiences loves to see freak of nature-jagger who gives impression of unchanged 40 years.Actually,for mick its been same for 40 years....he is musician,he is millionaire,he is slim,he is healthy,he gets beautiest women...
Stones stagelevel has gone lower than it was before(but i still like it)...but it would had gone lower even if mick was fat,diabetic and bypass surgered.
I like people who fights against time.I know truckdrivers whose firms are 50ys old..they maybe drives for 4 hours(or less,or more) in day...thats attitude.They try to prove for themselves that nothing changes.
I know 80 old private enterpriser who works for 20 hours in days in his smithy.He practically never sleep,he is always ready for orders from local industry.
i like my mothers 89 ys old aunt.She lives in house with only cold water and burns wood for heat.Sometimes she whine about her pains and condition but ithink she would die in day when she should leave her home(been home for over 60 years)
Yep, actually nothing should change, but it's too late. Another minute has gone.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 24, 2010 15:23
I checked again.
Age is a-g-e. One could say it's the equivalent of 'while'.
Time is forever but spelled t-i-m-e.
Doxa, I didn't "expect" anything. My whole motherfucking point was that Mick doesn't go around wagging about how old he is. It's not part of his MO.
Age is a-g-e. One could say it's the equivalent of 'while'.
Time is forever but spelled t-i-m-e.
Doxa, I didn't "expect" anything. My whole motherfucking point was that Mick doesn't go around wagging about how old he is. It's not part of his MO.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 24, 2010 15:28
okay, then age waits for no one....happy now?
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 24, 2010 15:32
No, not happy now. Happy...a while ago. Haven't been happy in a coon's age.
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 24, 2010 15:33
time waits for no coon
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 24, 2010 15:41
Who is Noone though? Still trying to figure that one out. Herman's Hermits Noone?
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
RaahenTiikeri
()
Date: June 24, 2010 16:51
yep...every minute has gone and will not come back.But peoples should't be frightened decade or couple.....
Mick's been(very very) lucky,but he's not only 65+ person in world who keeps going thus shaking years away and living strong.
Mick's been(very very) lucky,but he's not only 65+ person in world who keeps going thus shaking years away and living strong.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 24, 2010 18:00
Some nice observations, but we've strayed off topic a bit.
I think from some of the comments, there is a general feeling that Mick's voice underwent a metamorphisis some time during the 80's.
There were the 'coked up' comments for his voice during the 81-82 tour, and the "Primitive Cool" album where he really took that 'affected, nasally Party Doll-type' vocal, and made it his own, dammit!
I'm not sure whether the vocal coaching/training started at the same time, in that period, but it would appear to me, that is the time when he began his 'new Mick' period...mid to late 80's.
As time has gone by this 'affectation' has gotten stronger of course.
I think some of the material suffers a bit as a result...on the other hand, he's closing in on 70.
But is it age, or is it more accurately that his mock southern US accent, and the dropping of certain letters, ie "R's" that make this so noticeable?
I think from some of the comments, there is a general feeling that Mick's voice underwent a metamorphisis some time during the 80's.
There were the 'coked up' comments for his voice during the 81-82 tour, and the "Primitive Cool" album where he really took that 'affected, nasally Party Doll-type' vocal, and made it his own, dammit!
I'm not sure whether the vocal coaching/training started at the same time, in that period, but it would appear to me, that is the time when he began his 'new Mick' period...mid to late 80's.
As time has gone by this 'affectation' has gotten stronger of course.
I think some of the material suffers a bit as a result...on the other hand, he's closing in on 70.
But is it age, or is it more accurately that his mock southern US accent, and the dropping of certain letters, ie "R's" that make this so noticeable?
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: June 24, 2010 18:40
Coming late to Mick's voice party...
Thanks to jamesfDouglas especially, and skipstones and everyone for the great discussion.
For the first time ever, recently Mick has talked about how he gets
tired onstage...duh.
I will be looking to hear his voice live once again.
Thanks to jamesfDouglas especially, and skipstones and everyone for the great discussion.
For the first time ever, recently Mick has talked about how he gets
tired onstage...duh.
I will be looking to hear his voice live once again.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 24, 2010 18:49
Quote
angee
.
I will be looking to hear his voice live once again.
you could try listening to hear it, too...that's worked well for me in the past.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 21, 2014 17:09
I'm resurrecting this old thread because it struck me that Mick's singing style has improved I think this past tour, and his delivery has gotten a bit sharper than in the more recent past.
I keep thinking of 'Old Habits Die Hard', the song which I do like, but notice how his 'lazy' approach to not pronouncing the "R's", makes it sound a bit Elmer Fuddish.
I keep thinking of 'Old Habits Die Hard', the song which I do like, but notice how his 'lazy' approach to not pronouncing the "R's", makes it sound a bit Elmer Fuddish.
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: July 21, 2014 17:14
Quote
whitem8
Good post jamesfdouglas! Fun to read.
Let it Loose? Gazza is right on the money, one of Mick's most realized performances on vinyl. A pure sublime piece full of story telling, danger, and angst. Like a new gift being opened every time I listen to it. "I aint in love I anit in Luck!!! OHHH YEAH!" come what can beat that!
jeroen
Re: Crossing the Rubicon...old mick vs. new mick
Posted by:
RoughJusticeOnYa
()
Date: July 21, 2014 18:00
As much as I love (to read) & respect the discussions & posters on this forum: reading this thread from circa 2010, in light of our recent 2012-2014 experiences, made me realize (again) what a bunch of idle diddle-daddle-doddlers we sometimes are.
Some people over here really should learn how & where to put their socks away...
Bunch of sad, mad 'professors'.
Some people over here really should learn how & where to put their socks away...
Bunch of sad, mad 'professors'.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1928
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10