Tell Me :
Talk
nice post, swiss--critical, but thoughtful.
This was just an observation, not "bashing". Of course one's voice changes with age. But in Keith's case (as with Dylan's) when one does not care for the instrument it can be worn beyond what age alone will do. Smoking, especially, is a major cause. All I meant was it is a shame to have lost a voice that I thought was singular in music - Keith's pre-1980 voice. I agree, he got better singing live after deteriorating for several years, but I think that's because he realized that he needed to work on it. I also think Doxa is right, that much alcohol could not have helped.
Since you ask about Jagger, sure, he has lost some range too. he tries to compensate with that annoying overly mannered way of singing he does now (especially on the ballads). Still very strong on the rockers. Plus, he actually takes care of his voice and practices scales. Not suggesting Keith should do that. I cannot imagine Keith Richards practicing scales in his dressing room!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 11:00 by 71Tele.
Not but few guitar lessons and practising some scales wouldn't do bad for him...
- Doxa
I've said a few times here that I wish Keith would take a year and play scales--seriously! Some of the very best musicians (as well as writers, artists, and athletes) never stop working on their endurance, and basic chops.
Agreed...Keith abused himself a lot for many years. He's fortunate to be as healthy and compus mentos as he is. Will be interesting to see what he does now, moving forward as a person and artist.
- swiss
Thanks cc, I regularly enjoy your posts.
Nothing's in talking about the Stones (or much else) is entirely black or white. I think sometimes there may be language challenges at play here--both in people's missing nuances in what some of us are trying to convey as well as in their responses (e.g., referring to people who are trying to be thoughtful in their criticism as "evil").
- swiss
Yeah, I thought "evil" was a bit much. @#$%& was "evil". Criticizing things in Keith Richard's book? Not so much.
I think in Take It Or Leave It it's "flashing neon SIGN", not "sense", but no matter. That is a great example of his singing you sited. Another early one I love is Singer Not The Song, where he hits the falsetto notes. I don't think Loving Cup on Exile was studio tricks, just the ability to sing in a good studio setting with a proper balance, and have as many takes as was needed. I think Exile is where he really hit his heights as a vocalist. Casino Boogie is practically a co-lead vocal. Just gorgeous. Torn & Frayed gives me goosebumps. Sweet Black Angel, same thing. Also the rockers like Rocks Off. His little solo lines on Memory Motel are the very best thing on that album, in my opinion. I am glad he has learned to use his more "mature" voice, but I do miss the old one.
One aspect of the deterioration of Keith and Jagger's personal relationship is we don't get moments anymore like in Dead Flowers from L>RS. That chemistry is gone. They sang together a little bit in the Shine A Light film, but my guess is they were pressured to do so by Scorcese.
Keith's voice isn't pretty in some respects, yet like Bob Dylan, he really does manage to connect with the emotions within the songs. Technically he's not great, yet in terms of believeability, within the way he expresses himself, i actually think he comes pretty high. You can only work with the tools you have, and i think Keith pretty much does all he can. Jagger is a different case altogether. Somewhere along the line his abilities, or to put it in another respect, his interpretational skills have deserted him, and he tends to rely solely on technique, and certainly live, spectacle. He certainly has a bigger box of tricks than he had in his prime, yet he's lost his connection, and conviction to ever really deliver a song convincingly. Pre 'Undercover', for me Jagger's singing was never an issue because he seemed to be so well in tune and complimentary to whatever song he was singing, but especially from the mid eighties onwards that has not been the case. Jagger's take on the songs, and his inconsistencies, has resulting in some of the songs falling purely on the strength, or the believeability of his vocal. Really even as far back as the 81 tour, his vocals were pretty bad, yet in more recent years, and also due to the greater decline in his vocals due to age too, he can be at times quite unbearable. That's why i believe the Stones will never again record a classic song, or album. There are just to many hurdles for them to have to cross. I'm not sure Jagger has really been committed, or in love with music, for a very long time. He's pretty much the master of artifice. I find his vocal on 'Following The River' especially phony. Of course Keith's singing (and guitar playing) have declined too, but in his case i think his spirit is willing, but his musical tools are now weak.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 07:42 by Edward Twining.
You hit it on the head. I don't think Jagger has really believed in the material in a very long time, therefore he does not have a way to connect emotionally with it, so he uses these various mechanisms and mannerisms to get him through. Contrast Wild Horses, with its emotional depth, with Following The River, which is merely sentimental in a rather contrived way.
He still got some left. If you listen to Torn And Frayed on the Aragon/Chicago-boot from 2002, you'll hear Keith going for the high notes. It's not the same as his golden years, though. But he still got it.
I totally agree with this great analysis (expect re "Following The River" that I have learned to appreciate wih its clear human weaknesses. Maybe that is very idiosyncratic but I feel Jagger actually being ínspired to go beyond his mannerisms, or to challenge his limits.) Especially I like the comparision to Dylan.
For example, the last time I saw Stones, the only moments that I felt something like touched by the music - feeling connection - was Keith's delivery of "You Got The Silver". Jagger leaves me totally cold these days.
- Doxa
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Keith's Singing
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 6, 2010 20:25
It was interesting - and surprising - to read Keith's comments about his singing in his book. He says that he learned to sing in a lower register, but seems to suggest that this is an improvement. I have missed his "Happy" voice for a long time, and while he has done some interesting things in the lower register he has used in recent years, the voice that sang harmony on Sway and Casino Boogie, Wild Horses, Torn and Frayed, etc. is gone forever and I don't think it's a good thing. He does not say he wasted his voice from smoking and abuse, but I suspect that's the case. Therefore he had to find a lower register.
He describes and engineer setting up his headphone mix so that he could sing at much lower volume. But anyone who has done vocals in a studio knows that the higher the mix of your voice in the headphones, the less you will "push" your voice out (also the higher in pitch the key of the song is, the more you will need to push your vocal). Most of the great rock & roll vocalists, Springsteen, Daltrey, Westerberg, get their power from stretching to hit notes, as Keith used to do. I suppose it's good that he can still sing at all, but I miss the sweet voice of old, especially combined with Jagger's.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-06 20:31 by 71Tele.
He describes and engineer setting up his headphone mix so that he could sing at much lower volume. But anyone who has done vocals in a studio knows that the higher the mix of your voice in the headphones, the less you will "push" your voice out (also the higher in pitch the key of the song is, the more you will need to push your vocal). Most of the great rock & roll vocalists, Springsteen, Daltrey, Westerberg, get their power from stretching to hit notes, as Keith used to do. I suppose it's good that he can still sing at all, but I miss the sweet voice of old, especially combined with Jagger's.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-06 20:31 by 71Tele.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
rootsman
()
Date: November 6, 2010 21:52
So true, 71Tele!
His great, high voice went missing already after Some Girls...
His great, high voice went missing already after Some Girls...
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: November 7, 2010 01:49
Love Keith, but he's...how to put it? fill of shit. You're spot-on, Tele.
I haven't gotten to this point in the book yet, but not surprised he would saythis from what I've read so far...he's quite the spin doctor.
For him to write about not being able to sing high anymore he would have to be a lot more in touch with himself. Instead he turns what actually happened, due to years of profligate brutal self-abuse, as virtue.
My autobiography would be full of shit too. It's hard even writing a blog. Re-reading what you wrote a few weeks ago, and wanting to wipe it out because you were/are clearly full of shit, even tho you didn't think you were when you wrote it.
Human defenses are a funny thing. We want to have and convey a simple consistent narrative, but for most of us, if you're being completely "real," that idealized notion of vulnerability and openness--Peter Gabriel's "I come to you, defenses down with the trust of a child"--cannot withstand the reality of interactions with other humans, life conditions, or the inconsistencies and contradictions of who we are. And so, instead, we have defenses that help to support and reinforce our own myths about ourselves and the mythos we invite others to believe. It makes life less complex and messy. And it makes LIFE a teeny bit frustrating book, because Keith seems so often to be taking shelter in his defenses and mythos.
I haven't gotten to this point in the book yet, but not surprised he would saythis from what I've read so far...he's quite the spin doctor.
For him to write about not being able to sing high anymore he would have to be a lot more in touch with himself. Instead he turns what actually happened, due to years of profligate brutal self-abuse, as virtue.
My autobiography would be full of shit too. It's hard even writing a blog. Re-reading what you wrote a few weeks ago, and wanting to wipe it out because you were/are clearly full of shit, even tho you didn't think you were when you wrote it.
Human defenses are a funny thing. We want to have and convey a simple consistent narrative, but for most of us, if you're being completely "real," that idealized notion of vulnerability and openness--Peter Gabriel's "I come to you, defenses down with the trust of a child"--cannot withstand the reality of interactions with other humans, life conditions, or the inconsistencies and contradictions of who we are. And so, instead, we have defenses that help to support and reinforce our own myths about ourselves and the mythos we invite others to believe. It makes life less complex and messy. And it makes LIFE a teeny bit frustrating book, because Keith seems so often to be taking shelter in his defenses and mythos.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: November 7, 2010 02:09
Nothing to add 71Tele.........pity though, loved his younger voice a lot
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: November 7, 2010 02:23
Quote
swiss
Love Keith, but he's...how to put it? fill of shit. You're spot-on, Tele.
I haven't gotten to this point in the book yet, but not surprised he would saythis from what I've read so far...he's quite the spin doctor.
For him to write about not being able to sing high anymore he would have to be a lot more in touch with himself. Instead he turns what actually happened, due to years of profligate brutal self-abuse, as virtue.
My autobiography would be full of shit too. It's hard even writing a blog. Re-reading what you wrote a few weeks ago, and wanting to wipe it out because you were/are clearly full of shit, even tho you didn't think you were when you wrote it.
Human defenses are a funny thing. We want to have and convey a simple consistent narrative, but for most of us, if you're being completely "real," that idealized notion of vulnerability and openness--Peter Gabriel's "I come to you, defenses down with the trust of a child"--cannot withstand the reality of interactions with other humans, life conditions, or the inconsistencies and contradictions of who we are. And so, instead, we have defenses that help to support and reinforce our own myths about ourselves and the mythos we invite others to believe. It makes life less complex and messy. And it makes LIFE a teeny bit frustrating book, because Keith seems so often to be taking shelter in his defenses and mythos.
nice post, swiss--critical, but thoughtful.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 7, 2010 06:29
I think 'All About You' is possibly the last thing Keith recorded in his younger voice. However, being a ballad, his voice isn't as high as on 'Happy' and 'Before They Make Me Run'. By 'Little T@A' his voice is in transition, and also with 'Wanna Hold You'. Songs like 'Sleep Tonight' are the first indication of Keith's later crooning style, and his voice is further deepening. The change is age, nothing more nothing less, although i give Keith credit for trying to accommodate its deepness with more mature ballads. Maybe he was very aware of this change and was consciously trying to get the best out of his new voice, by finding a new angle to sing etc. However, i too, love his younger voice so much more. Keith started to age physically around this time too. On the 78 tour he was clearly the same Keith from the early days, he appeared to have changed very little. By 81, Keith looked like a younger version of the Keith we know today, the early Keith very much gone for good. Maybe the change to a more messy hairstyle made him appear older too.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 06:31 by Edward Twining.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 06:31 by Edward Twining.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
vermontoffender
()
Date: November 7, 2010 07:16
Keith's voice on studio recordings isn't as exceptional now as it was in the past.
However, I prefer Keith's live lead vocals over the past few tours to his live lead vocals from '72-'82.
I think he learned to be a better lead singer in a live setting during the Winos tours.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 07:17 by vermontoffender.
However, I prefer Keith's live lead vocals over the past few tours to his live lead vocals from '72-'82.
I think he learned to be a better lead singer in a live setting during the Winos tours.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 07:17 by vermontoffender.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
mikeeder
()
Date: November 7, 2010 09:29
One of the first things I noticed when I became a fan back in 1988 was that Keith didn't look or sound the same as he had in the early days. I thought the change would be a gradual process as I went through the years but as I studied film footage, dates, and photos, I was in for a shock. Keith had almost changed overnight!
Let's tackle the voice first. While it could be a bit rough on stage as early as 1975, in the studio it sounds clear well into 1978. True it's a touch rougher then the early days on his first solo 45, but he still sounds basically like he had in the past. I think the last old style Keith vocal was on "We Had It All". The rest of the 1979-80 period vocals sound transitional. It's hoarse but it's still a little higher pitched then it got by the 1981 tour. "Worried About You" is probably the last song with relatively high harmonies from Keith. I think one of the reasons I tend to dislike the post 1981 songs compared to what came before is that Keith's once great counterpoint to Mick is M.I.A.. I know they sang harmony after this but Keith's voice was far deeper so to me it's not the same.
On film the last really youthful Keith vocal was on the promo for "Faraway Eyes". He actually looks better then he has in years on the "Some Girls" videos, even resembling his 1967 self to a certain degree. What's odd is that the 1978 tour of a mere month or so later was the first where Keith really declined vocally but not yet physically
Ok so now let's tackle his face and hair. I think Keith had a really cool look until the SNL 1978 appearance. It was the first appearance of the Keith we know today. Look again at the 1978 tour footage, he doesn't look too different then he did back in the sixties. Suddenly on SNL his face looks caved in and 10 years older then it had just a few months previous. Also what happened to his hair? Did he just stop combing it at that point? How in the hell did it curl up like that? Keith seemed markedly more aged each time we see Keith over the course of the late 1978- early 1981 period. Compare 1978 tour pics, SNL '78 pics, 79 NB tour pics, then the 1980 ER videos. By the 1981 TY vids Keith looks like an old man.
There is only one story that may explain the metamorphosis. From what I know Keith stayed up once for nine days fell asleep into a speaker at a recording session and woke up with a broken nose. Looking at photo evidence I think this happened during the August 1978 sessions. Keith has confirmed this story in various interviews. That's my guess as to what rearranged his face but it's still so drastic. Another guess as to the vast change in Keith from 1978-81 is that the years finally caught up to him. Maybe getting off heroin stressed his body?
The voice change like I mentioned it seems it went back and forth for a while but I do hear a change from Before They Make Me Run, to All About You and Little T&A. By Wanna Hold You it's about the same as it was on the solo records
Let's tackle the voice first. While it could be a bit rough on stage as early as 1975, in the studio it sounds clear well into 1978. True it's a touch rougher then the early days on his first solo 45, but he still sounds basically like he had in the past. I think the last old style Keith vocal was on "We Had It All". The rest of the 1979-80 period vocals sound transitional. It's hoarse but it's still a little higher pitched then it got by the 1981 tour. "Worried About You" is probably the last song with relatively high harmonies from Keith. I think one of the reasons I tend to dislike the post 1981 songs compared to what came before is that Keith's once great counterpoint to Mick is M.I.A.. I know they sang harmony after this but Keith's voice was far deeper so to me it's not the same.
On film the last really youthful Keith vocal was on the promo for "Faraway Eyes". He actually looks better then he has in years on the "Some Girls" videos, even resembling his 1967 self to a certain degree. What's odd is that the 1978 tour of a mere month or so later was the first where Keith really declined vocally but not yet physically
Ok so now let's tackle his face and hair. I think Keith had a really cool look until the SNL 1978 appearance. It was the first appearance of the Keith we know today. Look again at the 1978 tour footage, he doesn't look too different then he did back in the sixties. Suddenly on SNL his face looks caved in and 10 years older then it had just a few months previous. Also what happened to his hair? Did he just stop combing it at that point? How in the hell did it curl up like that? Keith seemed markedly more aged each time we see Keith over the course of the late 1978- early 1981 period. Compare 1978 tour pics, SNL '78 pics, 79 NB tour pics, then the 1980 ER videos. By the 1981 TY vids Keith looks like an old man.
There is only one story that may explain the metamorphosis. From what I know Keith stayed up once for nine days fell asleep into a speaker at a recording session and woke up with a broken nose. Looking at photo evidence I think this happened during the August 1978 sessions. Keith has confirmed this story in various interviews. That's my guess as to what rearranged his face but it's still so drastic. Another guess as to the vast change in Keith from 1978-81 is that the years finally caught up to him. Maybe getting off heroin stressed his body?
The voice change like I mentioned it seems it went back and forth for a while but I do hear a change from Before They Make Me Run, to All About You and Little T&A. By Wanna Hold You it's about the same as it was on the solo records
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
Addicted
()
Date: November 7, 2010 09:33
As we get older, even the vocal cords are affected. It's not only wrinkles and grey hair. One of the effects on the vocal cords is the voice works best in the lower range. Where I live, the pension age for opera singers is 52, just for that reason. And some of you will argue But Pavarotti sang much longer! Yes, but there wasn't much ordinary about him, was there? Even by opera standards he was a freak of nature.
Keith's voice has developed and matured. In particular - as some of us noticed - after his accident, already on the first show, in Milan July 11th 2006, ha sang a lot better technically than before. Deeper, very lovely.
The fact that some people on this board take every little opportunity - and if there isn't one, they'll constrict one, to bash Keith, upsets me. Why are you so evil? Why are you not willing to see the facts? The Stones are elderly men (and that even includes former members, like Taylor, who has not succeded in taking care of himself), and not even they have been able to stop the ageing process.
And by the way - what about Jagger's voice? Honestly - he's never been a spectacular singer, but he's an outstanding frontman.
Keith's voice has developed and matured. In particular - as some of us noticed - after his accident, already on the first show, in Milan July 11th 2006, ha sang a lot better technically than before. Deeper, very lovely.
The fact that some people on this board take every little opportunity - and if there isn't one, they'll constrict one, to bash Keith, upsets me. Why are you so evil? Why are you not willing to see the facts? The Stones are elderly men (and that even includes former members, like Taylor, who has not succeded in taking care of himself), and not even they have been able to stop the ageing process.
And by the way - what about Jagger's voice? Honestly - he's never been a spectacular singer, but he's an outstanding frontman.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: November 7, 2010 10:29
Very simple, this process is called aging, a metamorphosis that everyone passes once you reach your 40s.
After 40 , aging changes your voice, hair, eyes, look.................everything is getting worse......i mean, evrything
Just take a listen to Dylan's voice since out of mind
After 40 , aging changes your voice, hair, eyes, look.................everything is getting worse......i mean, evrything
Just take a listen to Dylan's voice since out of mind
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 7, 2010 10:35
Really good and informaive posts considering the change - and the timing - of his voice (to not forget the hair cut 
)
I think one indicator not yet mentioned here might be the liqour. Since he "cleaned" he started using Jack Daniels, and later vodka, incredibly much. In his book he doesn't speak at all - only mentions that like with the case of his dad, booze doesn't affect on him at all (well, he admits he had a terrible hangover in Africa once that seemingly ruined his safari experience...)
I think the Bockris book is about the only Keith book that tries to discuss this theme, and even claims that Keith is not able reflect his weakness to addictions (probablly due claims like these, Bockris was a persona non grata to Stones circles). I remember there was also a description that Keith wasn't ill at all during his heroin years - he was like an immune to ordinary flus, etc - but when he quitted the habit, all those diseases occured immediately. Maybe having that all then, would be seen in his physical appearance.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 10:36 by Doxa.
)I think one indicator not yet mentioned here might be the liqour. Since he "cleaned" he started using Jack Daniels, and later vodka, incredibly much. In his book he doesn't speak at all - only mentions that like with the case of his dad, booze doesn't affect on him at all (well, he admits he had a terrible hangover in Africa once that seemingly ruined his safari experience...)
I think the Bockris book is about the only Keith book that tries to discuss this theme, and even claims that Keith is not able reflect his weakness to addictions (probablly due claims like these, Bockris was a persona non grata to Stones circles). I remember there was also a description that Keith wasn't ill at all during his heroin years - he was like an immune to ordinary flus, etc - but when he quitted the habit, all those diseases occured immediately. Maybe having that all then, would be seen in his physical appearance.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 10:36 by Doxa.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 7, 2010 10:57
Quote
Addicted
As we get older, even the vocal cords are affected. It's not only wrinkles and grey hair. One of the effects on the vocal cords is the voice works best in the lower range. Where I live, the pension age for opera singers is 52, just for that reason. And some of you will argue But Pavarotti sang much longer! Yes, but there wasn't much ordinary about him, was there? Even by opera standards he was a freak of nature.
Keith's voice has developed and matured. In particular - as some of us noticed - after his accident, already on the first show, in Milan July 11th 2006, ha sang a lot better technically than before. Deeper, very lovely.
The fact that some people on this board take every little opportunity - and if there isn't one, they'll constrict one, to bash Keith, upsets me. Why are you so evil? Why are you not willing to see the facts? The Stones are elderly men (and that even includes former members, like Taylor, who has not succeded in taking care of himself), and not even they have been able to stop the ageing process.
And by the way - what about Jagger's voice? Honestly - he's never been a spectacular singer, but he's an outstanding frontman.
This was just an observation, not "bashing". Of course one's voice changes with age. But in Keith's case (as with Dylan's) when one does not care for the instrument it can be worn beyond what age alone will do. Smoking, especially, is a major cause. All I meant was it is a shame to have lost a voice that I thought was singular in music - Keith's pre-1980 voice. I agree, he got better singing live after deteriorating for several years, but I think that's because he realized that he needed to work on it. I also think Doxa is right, that much alcohol could not have helped.
Since you ask about Jagger, sure, he has lost some range too. he tries to compensate with that annoying overly mannered way of singing he does now (especially on the ballads). Still very strong on the rockers. Plus, he actually takes care of his voice and practices scales. Not suggesting Keith should do that. I cannot imagine Keith Richards practicing scales in his dressing room!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 11:00 by 71Tele.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 7, 2010 11:07
Quote
71Tele
Not suggesting Keith should do that. I cannot imagine Keith Richards practicing scales in his dressing room!
Not but few guitar lessons and practising some scales wouldn't do bad for him...
- Doxa
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: November 7, 2010 11:22
Jagger's singing in Following the River is superb.
Maybe the song, or maybe this way of singing i s not of everybody's taste; but it is very very difficult to reach those high notes. I like it.
Maybe people like Jagger singing in other way, but i love all his singing along the years (except for DW)
KR's voice nowadays is peculiar, sometimes i like it, sometimes is awful (now i am thinking about his harmonies singing connection on the SAL DVD bonus tunes)
His guitar playing has worsened, but i do not think it is related with age (i am thinking in SAL sympathy and undercover..........)
Maybe the song, or maybe this way of singing i s not of everybody's taste; but it is very very difficult to reach those high notes. I like it.
Maybe people like Jagger singing in other way, but i love all his singing along the years (except for DW)
KR's voice nowadays is peculiar, sometimes i like it, sometimes is awful (now i am thinking about his harmonies singing connection on the SAL DVD bonus tunes)
His guitar playing has worsened, but i do not think it is related with age (i am thinking in SAL sympathy and undercover..........)
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
Roadster32
()
Date: November 7, 2010 14:32
Quote
71TeleQuote
Addicted
I cannot imagine Keith Richards practicing scales in his dressing room!
He does! And he knows them all, believe me!
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
behroez
()
Date: November 7, 2010 17:52
I really don't understand that they let Keith sing songs, he just can't sing (this place is empty should have stayed empty) and particulairly live it's just horrific. Remember the Malieveld concert in 98 when Keith had done his two songs (to a clearly less enthusiastic audience as compared to the rest of the concert), a guy in front of me turned to his mate and said "thank god that's over, now for godsake bring Mick on again". couldn't have said it better.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: November 7, 2010 18:12
I only really like Keith's voice starting with TOO RUDE. I like the mileage in his voice from thereon. His voice was too thin and nasal sounding prior. I like earlier songs of his, but for reasons other than the singing. THE WORST, THIS PLACE IS EMPTY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEAN IT, SLIPPING AWAY are all favorites of mine, largely for the singing.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
mockingbird3
()
Date: November 7, 2010 18:15
Yep Tele and others! It was the perfect soulful full complement to the greatest rock radio hits ever. Weathered but chimiog beautiful high rich harmonies and he didnt maintain any dedicated effort to protect and mature this beautiful natural gift. He was stupendous.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: November 8, 2010 00:55
Quote
DoxaQuote
71Tele
Not suggesting Keith should do that. I cannot imagine Keith Richards practicing scales in his dressing room!
Not but few guitar lessons and practising some scales wouldn't do bad for him...
- Doxa
I've said a few times here that I wish Keith would take a year and play scales--seriously! Some of the very best musicians (as well as writers, artists, and athletes) never stop working on their endurance, and basic chops.
Quote
mockingbird3
Yep Tele and others! It was the perfect soulful full complement to the greatest rock radio hits ever. Weathered but chimiog beautiful high rich harmonies and he didnt maintain any dedicated effort to protect and mature this beautiful natural gift. He was stupendous.
Agreed...Keith abused himself a lot for many years. He's fortunate to be as healthy and compus mentos as he is. Will be interesting to see what he does now, moving forward as a person and artist.
- swiss
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: November 8, 2010 01:31
Quote
ccQuote
swiss
Love Keith, but he's...how to put it? fill of shit. You're spot-on, Tele.
I haven't gotten to this point in the book yet, but not surprised he would saythis from what I've read so far...he's quite the spin doctor.
For him to write about not being able to sing high anymore he would have to be a lot more in touch with himself. Instead he turns what actually happened, due to years of profligate brutal self-abuse, as virtue.
My autobiography would be full of shit too. It's hard even writing a blog. Re-reading what you wrote a few weeks ago, and wanting to wipe it out because you were/are clearly full of shit, even tho you didn't think you were when you wrote it.
Human defenses are a funny thing. We want to have and convey a simple consistent narrative, but for most of us, if you're being completely "real," that idealized notion of vulnerability and openness--Peter Gabriel's "I come to you, defenses down with the trust of a child"--cannot withstand the reality of interactions with other humans, life conditions, or the inconsistencies and contradictions of who we are. And so, instead, we have defenses that help to support and reinforce our own myths about ourselves and the mythos we invite others to believe. It makes life less complex and messy. And it makes LIFE a teeny bit frustrating book, because Keith seems so often to be taking shelter in his defenses and mythos.
nice post, swiss--critical, but thoughtful.
Thanks cc, I regularly enjoy your posts.
Nothing's in talking about the Stones (or much else) is entirely black or white. I think sometimes there may be language challenges at play here--both in people's missing nuances in what some of us are trying to convey as well as in their responses (e.g., referring to people who are trying to be thoughtful in their criticism as "evil").
- swiss
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: November 8, 2010 01:55
Addicted wrote:"The fact that some people on this board take every little opportunity - and if there isn't one, they'll constrict one, to bash Keith, upsets me. Why are you so evil?"
So, now if you say anything,about Keith that could be considered criticism then You are "EVIL"???.
Come on,don't be so touchy,we here at the board have many opinions some you may agree with them some you may not,so what?,and if this upsets you, then create your own board,and the requirement would be that everyone writes "nice" thing about Keith. By now you have let us know,many times over that you know Keith and work for him,Fantastic, but us mere humans still have the right to express our individual opinions good or bad about Keith. End of the story.
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
So, now if you say anything,about Keith that could be considered criticism then You are "EVIL"???.
Come on,don't be so touchy,we here at the board have many opinions some you may agree with them some you may not,so what?,and if this upsets you, then create your own board,and the requirement would be that everyone writes "nice" thing about Keith. By now you have let us know,many times over that you know Keith and work for him,Fantastic, but us mere humans still have the right to express our individual opinions good or bad about Keith. End of the story.
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 8, 2010 04:25
Quote
ROPENI
Addicted wrote:"The fact that some people on this board take every little opportunity - and if there isn't one, they'll constrict one, to bash Keith, upsets me. Why are you so evil?"
So, now if you say anything,about Keith that could be considered criticism then You are "EVIL"???.
Come on,don't be so touchy,we here at the board have many opinions some you may agree with them some you may not,so what?,and if this upsets you, then create your own board,and the requirement would be that everyone writes "nice" thing about Keith. By now you have let us know,many times over that you know Keith and work for him,Fantastic, but us mere humans still have the right to express our individual opinions good or bad about Keith. End of the story.
Yeah, I thought "evil" was a bit much. @#$%& was "evil". Criticizing things in Keith Richard's book? Not so much.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
dandelion1967
()
Date: November 8, 2010 04:37
What I really care about Keith's singing is the way he does it. he changed with time, that's true, and I think he become more and more mature and goes much more deeper. Liste to This place is empty, he sing it with all of his soul. Maybe i get this message very easy, because in Argentina we have "Polaco" Goyeneche, one of the greates tango singers ever, who in his younger years have a beautifull voice, but years, alcohol and drugs take that voice and leave his frasing, which is the main thing. As we say here, "el polaco no canta, dice el tango" (polaco didn't sing, he "speak" tango). Is amazing to hear a guy completely out of tune, but in the right frasing. Keith do this this also. But he did it since the very first days... listen to the harmony in "Out of time". He seem to sing a 7th mayor to Mick, but is between a 7th mayor and an unison. And keep in mind studio work. In 68 he start singing much higher every time. His top singing is in Exile. But don't be fooled... Happy is over-speeded. Turn it down a half tone and you will notice...
In the Montreax' video of Loving cup, you can hear Keith screaming (not singing) the high armony, and seems not to reach. Studio tricks in the album? by the way, sounds amazing, and that's the point.
Another thing is he sings amazing harmonies, but not in the whole line as Mick sings. That is hard to listen, but if you try you will get it. That's another studio trick, by fading up and down the level. Take it or leave it is another good example.. but without trick. Listen what he sing... you can (TURN) up and (ON) more (TIME) than a flashing neon (SENSE). That "sense" is a low note, instead of the high note he sing before. That's a creative man!
--------------------------------------------
"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"
--------------------------------------------
In the Montreax' video of Loving cup, you can hear Keith screaming (not singing) the high armony, and seems not to reach. Studio tricks in the album? by the way, sounds amazing, and that's the point.
Another thing is he sings amazing harmonies, but not in the whole line as Mick sings. That is hard to listen, but if you try you will get it. That's another studio trick, by fading up and down the level. Take it or leave it is another good example.. but without trick. Listen what he sing... you can (TURN) up and (ON) more (TIME) than a flashing neon (SENSE). That "sense" is a low note, instead of the high note he sing before. That's a creative man!
--------------------------------------------
"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"
--------------------------------------------
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 8, 2010 05:28
Quote
dandelion1967
What I really care about Keith's singing is the way he does it. he changed with time, that's true, and I think he become more and more mature and goes much more deeper. Liste to This place is empty, he sing it with all of his soul. Maybe i get this message very easy, because in Argentina we have "Polaco" Goyeneche, one of the greates tango singers ever, who in his younger years have a beautifull voice, but years, alcohol and drugs take that voice and leave his frasing, which is the main thing. As we say here, "el polaco no canta, dice el tango" (polaco didn't sing, he "speak" tango). Is amazing to hear a guy completely out of tune, but in the right frasing. Keith do this this also. But he did it since the very first days... listen to the harmony in "Out of time". He seem to sing a 7th mayor to Mick, but is between a 7th mayor and an unison. And keep in mind studio work. In 68 he start singing much higher every time. His top singing is in Exile. But don't be fooled... Happy is over-speeded. Turn it down a half tone and you will notice...
In the Montreax' video of Loving cup, you can hear Keith screaming (not singing) the high armony, and seems not to reach. Studio tricks in the album? by the way, sounds amazing, and that's the point.
Another thing is he sings amazing harmonies, but not in the whole line as Mick sings. That is hard to listen, but if you try you will get it. That's another studio trick, by fading up and down the level. Take it or leave it is another good example.. but without trick. Listen what he sing... you can (TURN) up and (ON) more (TIME) than a flashing neon (SENSE). That "sense" is a low note, instead of the high note he sing before. That's a creative man!
I think in Take It Or Leave It it's "flashing neon SIGN", not "sense", but no matter. That is a great example of his singing you sited. Another early one I love is Singer Not The Song, where he hits the falsetto notes. I don't think Loving Cup on Exile was studio tricks, just the ability to sing in a good studio setting with a proper balance, and have as many takes as was needed. I think Exile is where he really hit his heights as a vocalist. Casino Boogie is practically a co-lead vocal. Just gorgeous. Torn & Frayed gives me goosebumps. Sweet Black Angel, same thing. Also the rockers like Rocks Off. His little solo lines on Memory Motel are the very best thing on that album, in my opinion. I am glad he has learned to use his more "mature" voice, but I do miss the old one.
One aspect of the deterioration of Keith and Jagger's personal relationship is we don't get moments anymore like in Dead Flowers from L>RS. That chemistry is gone. They sang together a little bit in the Shine A Light film, but my guess is they were pressured to do so by Scorcese.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 8, 2010 07:37
Quote
KeithNacho
Jagger's singing in Following the River is superb.
Maybe the song, or maybe this way of singing i s not of everybody's taste; but it is very very difficult to reach those high notes. I like it.
Maybe people like Jagger singing in other way, but i love all his singing along the years (except for DW)
KR's voice nowadays is peculiar, sometimes i like it, sometimes is awful (now i am thinking about his harmonies singing connection on the SAL DVD bonus tunes)
His guitar playing has worsened, but i do not think it is related with age (i am thinking in SAL sympathy and undercover..........)
Keith's voice isn't pretty in some respects, yet like Bob Dylan, he really does manage to connect with the emotions within the songs. Technically he's not great, yet in terms of believeability, within the way he expresses himself, i actually think he comes pretty high. You can only work with the tools you have, and i think Keith pretty much does all he can. Jagger is a different case altogether. Somewhere along the line his abilities, or to put it in another respect, his interpretational skills have deserted him, and he tends to rely solely on technique, and certainly live, spectacle. He certainly has a bigger box of tricks than he had in his prime, yet he's lost his connection, and conviction to ever really deliver a song convincingly. Pre 'Undercover', for me Jagger's singing was never an issue because he seemed to be so well in tune and complimentary to whatever song he was singing, but especially from the mid eighties onwards that has not been the case. Jagger's take on the songs, and his inconsistencies, has resulting in some of the songs falling purely on the strength, or the believeability of his vocal. Really even as far back as the 81 tour, his vocals were pretty bad, yet in more recent years, and also due to the greater decline in his vocals due to age too, he can be at times quite unbearable. That's why i believe the Stones will never again record a classic song, or album. There are just to many hurdles for them to have to cross. I'm not sure Jagger has really been committed, or in love with music, for a very long time. He's pretty much the master of artifice. I find his vocal on 'Following The River' especially phony. Of course Keith's singing (and guitar playing) have declined too, but in his case i think his spirit is willing, but his musical tools are now weak.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 07:42 by Edward Twining.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: November 8, 2010 07:40
It was Steve Bing, who put up the money for the film, who insisted Mick and Keith sing together once into the mic. As for Keith's playing, the limitations are physical and "practice" will not make the difference.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 8, 2010 08:00
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
KeithNacho
Jagger's singing in Following the River is superb.
Maybe the song, or maybe this way of singing i s not of everybody's taste; but it is very very difficult to reach those high notes. I like it.
Maybe people like Jagger singing in other way, but i love all his singing along the years (except for DW)
KR's voice nowadays is peculiar, sometimes i like it, sometimes is awful (now i am thinking about his harmonies singing connection on the SAL DVD bonus tunes)
His guitar playing has worsened, but i do not think it is related with age (i am thinking in SAL sympathy and undercover..........)
Keith's voice isn't pretty in some respects, yet like Bob Dylan, he really does manage to connect with the emotions within the songs. Technically he's not great, yet in terms of believeability, within the way he expresses himself, i actually think he comes pretty high. You can only work with the tools you have, and i think Keith pretty much does all he can. Jagger is a different case altogether. Somewhere along the line his abilities, or to put it in another respect, his interpretational skills have deserted him, and he tends to rely solely on technique, and certainly live, spectacle. He certainly has a bigger box of tricks than he had in his prime, yet he's lost his connection, and conviction to ever really deliver a song convincingly. Pre 'Undercover', for me Jagger's singing was never an issue because he seemed to be so well in tune and complimentary to whatever song he was singing, but especially from the mid eighties onwards that has not been the case. Jagger's take on the songs, and his inconsistencies, has resulting in some of the songs falling purely on the strength, or the believeability of his vocal. Really even as far back as the 81 tour, his vocals were pretty bad, yet in more recent years, and also due to the greater decline in his vocals due to age too, he can be at times quite unbearable. That's why i believe the Stones will never again record a classic song, or album. There are just to many hurdles for them to have to cross. I'm not sure Jagger has really been committed, or in love with music, for a very long time. He's pretty much the master of artifice. I find his vocal on 'Following The River' especially phony. Of course Keith's singing (and guitar playing) have declined too, but in his case i think his spirit is willing, but his musical tools are now weak.
You hit it on the head. I don't think Jagger has really believed in the material in a very long time, therefore he does not have a way to connect emotionally with it, so he uses these various mechanisms and mannerisms to get him through. Contrast Wild Horses, with its emotional depth, with Following The River, which is merely sentimental in a rather contrived way.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 8, 2010 11:09
Quote
71Tele
It was interesting - and surprising - to read Keith's comments about his singing in his book. He says that he learned to sing in a lower register, but seems to suggest that this is an improvement. I have missed his "Happy" voice for a long time, and while he has done some interesting things in the lower register he has used in recent years, the voice that sang harmony on Sway and Casino Boogie, Wild Horses, Torn and Frayed, etc. is gone forever and I don't think it's a good thing. He does not say he wasted his voice from smoking and abuse, but I suspect that's the case. Therefore he had to find a lower register.
He describes and engineer setting up his headphone mix so that he could sing at much lower volume. But anyone who has done vocals in a studio knows that the higher the mix of your voice in the headphones, the less you will "push" your voice out (also the higher in pitch the key of the song is, the more you will need to push your vocal). Most of the great rock & roll vocalists, Springsteen, Daltrey, Westerberg, get their power from stretching to hit notes, as Keith used to do. I suppose it's good that he can still sing at all, but I miss the sweet voice of old, especially combined with Jagger's.
He still got some left. If you listen to Torn And Frayed on the Aragon/Chicago-boot from 2002, you'll hear Keith going for the high notes. It's not the same as his golden years, though. But he still got it.
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
paulywaul
()
Date: November 8, 2010 11:40
Keith's Singing ...........
was perfectly OK once upon a time (early to middle 70s perhaps), but at some point it deteriorated noticeably, and these days it is not good at all. No disrespect to the great man, but he can't really carry a tune today like he was able to several decades ago. For my money, anyone that doesn't recognise that to "some degree or other" is in dire need of a hearing test themselves. Sorry to be less than subtle, but that's how I see it (or hear it) !!
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
was perfectly OK once upon a time (early to middle 70s perhaps), but at some point it deteriorated noticeably, and these days it is not good at all. No disrespect to the great man, but he can't really carry a tune today like he was able to several decades ago. For my money, anyone that doesn't recognise that to "some degree or other" is in dire need of a hearing test themselves. Sorry to be less than subtle, but that's how I see it (or hear it) !!
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Re: Keith's Singing
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 8, 2010 13:20
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
KeithNacho
Jagger's singing in Following the River is superb.
Maybe the song, or maybe this way of singing i s not of everybody's taste; but it is very very difficult to reach those high notes. I like it.
Maybe people like Jagger singing in other way, but i love all his singing along the years (except for DW)
KR's voice nowadays is peculiar, sometimes i like it, sometimes is awful (now i am thinking about his harmonies singing connection on the SAL DVD bonus tunes)
His guitar playing has worsened, but i do not think it is related with age (i am thinking in SAL sympathy and undercover..........)
Keith's voice isn't pretty in some respects, yet like Bob Dylan, he really does manage to connect with the emotions within the songs. Technically he's not great, yet in terms of believeability, within the way he expresses himself, i actually think he comes pretty high. You can only work with the tools you have, and i think Keith pretty much does all he can. Jagger is a different case altogether. Somewhere along the line his abilities, or to put it in another respect, his interpretational skills have deserted him, and he tends to rely solely on technique, and certainly live, spectacle. He certainly has a bigger box of tricks than he had in his prime, yet he's lost his connection, and conviction to ever really deliver a song convincingly. Pre 'Undercover', for me Jagger's singing was never an issue because he seemed to be so well in tune and complimentary to whatever song he was singing, but especially from the mid eighties onwards that has not been the case. Jagger's take on the songs, and his inconsistencies, has resulting in some of the songs falling purely on the strength, or the believeability of his vocal. Really even as far back as the 81 tour, his vocals were pretty bad, yet in more recent years, and also due to the greater decline in his vocals due to age too, he can be at times quite unbearable. That's why i believe the Stones will never again record a classic song, or album. There are just to many hurdles for them to have to cross. I'm not sure Jagger has really been committed, or in love with music, for a very long time. He's pretty much the master of artifice. I find his vocal on 'Following The River' especially phony. Of course Keith's singing (and guitar playing) have declined too, but in his case i think his spirit is willing, but his musical tools are now weak.
I totally agree with this great analysis (expect re "Following The River" that I have learned to appreciate wih its clear human weaknesses. Maybe that is very idiosyncratic but I feel Jagger actually being ínspired to go beyond his mannerisms, or to challenge his limits.) Especially I like the comparision to Dylan.
For example, the last time I saw Stones, the only moments that I felt something like touched by the music - feeling connection - was Keith's delivery of "You Got The Silver". Jagger leaves me totally cold these days.
- Doxa
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1784
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10