Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
24FPS
Maybe someone already mentioned this, but Jagger sounded about as good as he would at this point. Nothing makes up for constant gigs to get everything up to speed. His wardrobe was superb. His mastery of the stage and audience was stunning. He should not be expected to sound like he's 30. I don't really understand what trouble people are having with his voice. If anything I felt bad for Barbara Streisand. I have never heard her be as flat and unable to hit the high notes as her performance on the Grammys.

Mick may have set a bar that Keith is going to find hard to reach.

It's just amazing how we all interpret so differently. I think Jagger's grammy performance pretty much emphasised everything that has been wrong with him, certainly in the last 20 years. Somewhere along the line in my opinion, Mick's genuine feel for music has died, and has been replaced by a hollow shell of a parody of a rock star, but without any genuine sense of any real love for what he's doing, or conviction. The difficulty is sometimes really knowing what proportion may be sincerely the result of the aging process, and how much is just down to Jagger's lack of real interest. My observations are that Jagger's vocals have most definitely deteriorated due to age, but could perhaps still be better, if Jagger was a little more committed. As for his general stage presence, again he seems very artificial, yet i do agree with those who say that at least Jagger's grammy appearance was at least successful in terms of spectacle. However, scratch the surface, and Jagger is seriously pitiful. Jagger, for me, is too hung up on proving he's peter pan, as part of a huge ego trip. I wish, for a change he could be a little more real, and suspend his vanity for just a few moments, to allow us to experience something just that little more profound.

I don't think Jagger's vocals was better in 1965 on this song, actually. All the Mick Jagger moves and the prancing is nothing new - he did that in his prime as well, the mimicking and the "acting", too.

Jagger is not a worse singer today, but a more mature one. By mature I mean the sound of his voice - it's deeper and with less punch.

Today, when he sings, he has a more limited range, but WHAT he sings sounds more professional, and the phrasing is actually more advanced.

On the grammy performance it was all about the show, as it was in 65 when the Stones opened with this tune. It's no use in emphasizing the beauty in the melody lines in this tune, imo. It's all about the show, something that the Blues Brothers also understood later on.

I agree!!!

I think that the comparison between 1965 and 2011 is a bit invalid. By 1965 the Stones werent't much of a live-act: their shows were hardly longer than 30 minutes. The comparison between 1969 and now is better. The thing that bothers me most with the SAL-film for instance isn't Keith's noodling - it's Jaggers voice. He sounds hoarse and too nasal. Keith's noodling and lack of playing you can edit away: you can't do that with Jagger's voice. I wish he could hire a proper and well educated voice-pedagog. At least he can afford it!

I love the interaction when the band just comes onstage to plug in and setup then Mick says "Bow To The Queen" then asks the band "Are You All Ready" then he turns to Brian and says "Start Her Brian." Brian hits the opening riff for "Everybody Needs Somebody."

I really like "Pain In My Heart" I always thought it was a good fit for them as it has that soul pounding rhythm riff.

Man, those were the days!

Quote
Stoneage
I think that the comparison between 1965 and 2011 is a bit invalid. By 1965 the Stones werent't much of a live-act: their shows were hardly longer than 30 minutes.

insane! The Stones' early live shows are what made their reputation.

Quote

The thing that bothers me most with the SAL-film for instance isn't Keith's noodling - it's Jaggers voice. He sounds hoarse and too nasal. Keith's noodling and lack of playing you can edit away: you can't do that with Jagger's voice. I wish he could hire a proper and well educated voice-pedagog. At least he can afford it!

there I agree with you, though I don't think a voice coach is going to help at this stage.

Quote
The Sicilian




I love the interaction when the band just comes onstage to plug in and setup then Mick says "Bow To The Queen" then asks the band "Are You All Ready" then he turns to Brian and says "Start Her Brian." Brian hits the opening riff for "Everybody Needs Somebody."

I really like "Pain In My Heart" I always thought it was a good fit for them as it has that soul pounding rhythm riff.

yes, great isn't it ! also love keiths typical 60s guitarists stance in the beginning (with bended knee ) and of course the bigsby les paul ( i'm a bit obsessed with that guitar )

By all accounts,the Stones were a great live act in the early years.

There's nothing wrong with the '65 Mick Jagger, and there's nothing wrong with the '11 Mick Jagger. The one from '65 isn't coming back. The one from '11 has the gravitas to deliver those same numbers with the years of actual experience behind them. While the chirpy amped up Jagger of '65 was a treat, that Jagger had its limitations. There is an authenticity in the voice of '11 model. Solomon Burke first put the 'cape of soul' on Jagger, and now Jagger is fully grown into it. I prefer to celebrate that Jagger stays in shape, gave up the smokes and most of the drugs so that we can still have an energetic, powerful Jagger to hopefully rock the stages of the world one last time with what's left of his original band.

Thank you, 24FPS ! I agree

erm, what the heck does "the other song" mean??

just watched the clip from the Grammy's.
Jagger rocked everyone's f...in socks off!!!!!!!!

woo hooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROCKMAN

Love it, Rockman

Quote
Stoneage
I think that the comparison between 1965 and 2011 is a bit invalid. By 1965 the Stones werent't much of a live-act: their shows were hardly longer than 30 minutes.

Watch the TAMI Show and come back to me. The fact that they only played 30 minutes back then as irrelevant as saying that 2006 is better than 1969 by virtue of them playing for twice as long.

The Rolling Stones toured Sweden in 1965,66 and 67. They recieved very bad reviews in the press. The concerts were very short and apparently you couldn't hear much of it due to screaming girls and poor audio. Personally I consider Beggars Banquet as the first "modern" Stones album. I don't care much about the pre-68 Rolling Stones, at least when it comes albums and concerts. I know many of their hit-singles were pre-68 though and I always liked Brians contributions to the band. Haven't seen the TAMI show though: Can you watch it on Youtube? Perhaps I will change my mind after that, who knows?

Yes, you can.

They couldnt be heard anywhere pre-1968. That doesnt mean they werent a first rate live band. After all, half of the gigs theyve played in their entire career took place between 1962-67.

Like it or not, the Stones will be remembered long after we're all gone primarily for the impact they had in the 60s. More so than any decade or era that followed.

Watched the TAMI show. Excellent picture quality for a 1964 show. It isn't bad, doesn't grab me though. Can't really explain why. Guess I'll stick to the post 68`period in the future too. You can't love em`all!

Quote
24FPS
There's nothing wrong with the '65 Mick Jagger, and there's nothing wrong with the '11 Mick Jagger. The one from '65 isn't coming back. The one from '11 has the gravitas to deliver those same numbers with the years of actual experience behind them. While the chirpy amped up Jagger of '65 was a treat, that Jagger had its limitations. There is an authenticity in the voice of '11 model. Solomon Burke first put the 'cape of soul' on Jagger, and now Jagger is fully grown into it. I prefer to celebrate that Jagger stays in shape, gave up the smokes and most of the drugs so that we can still have an energetic, powerful Jagger to hopefully rock the stages of the world one last time with what's left of his original band.

Jagger was a natural performer back in the mid sixties, vocally and physically, and very endearing too. His every gesture contributed to the greater whole of the performance. All his little idiosycracies were a joy to behold, and worked so well within the context of his performance. Nowadays, there is no subtelty, no warmth, or point of connection in my opinion. Jagger just wants to seduce an audience because of who he is, because of a need for his ego to be massaged, and a desire for everyone to say 'isn't that Mick Jagger great.....' etc. But it is really not about the music anymore. It's about himself. There's no authenticity at all, 24FPS, in the 11 model. Jagger's vocal has no spring, or freshness anymore, which of course may be due to age too, but i don't think ultimately Jagger is really interesting in singing the song, beyond him feeling the need to create a spectacle for himself to glow in. That has been Jagger's biggest mistake in the last 20 years. He can incorporate all the contemporary sounds he likes, and can show all the physical attributes normally afforded to a man half his age, but some of his audience, like me, aren't fooled. They know when something is genuine, or not. They can feel it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 08:57 by Edward Twining.

That's what you feel,Edward Twining, but there are others that feel quite the opposite. After I've read all that you wrote, I can draw a conclusion
- the main sin of Mick Jagger's is him growing old. You just can't forgive him for not being young, innocent and attractive anymore.
It's like many men don't get over the fact that their women grow old, she's the same person, but anything she does disgusts them. Those things they loved about her irritate the most.
Mick Jagger never was only about music, it's just not him. You used to like it but now you grew out of it.

Posted on mickjagger.com

Thanks Jaggerzita for the clip! Nice to watch. What's the deal with Jagger and black Mercedes S-class? I recognize the bloke who opens the door for Jagger: Is he Jagger's personal bodyguard? What does he do inbetween tours? Follow Jagger around fulltime?

Quote
jaggerzita




Posted on mickjagger.com

I don't know what happened, now the video seems to be private

I think the problem is that his experience or personality doesnt show, you cant tell he's the real Jagger. You can't hear it in his voice, he sounded older and more experienced in 1969 on Let it bleed. Or Exile. That's the problem. I wish he wouldnt use that horrible nasal style and that annoying phrasing.

his voice doesn't bother me - voices change with time and his was never particularly that remarkable, anyway. but, the vocal mannerisms and phrasing - he seems to have lost his way over the years. his amazing, instinctive abilities seem to have virtually vanished...sad.

I think it's interesting that some wonder whether or not Mick can sustain the energy for a long show, after
performing splendidly at the Grammys. To me there is little doubt that he can, less so than ever now.

Of course, a one-off is different from a whole show, and working with the rest of the Stones will be different
too.

Quote
angee
I think it's interesting that some wonder whether or not Mick can sustain the energy for a long show, after
performing splendidly at the Grammys. To me there is little doubt that he can, less so than ever now.

Of course, a one-off is different from a whole show, and working with the rest of the Stones will be different
too.

given that when he was in his early sixties he had many health problems touring, causing several postponements and cancellations, i'm not sure how anyone can have any confidence that he'll have any better fortune in his late sixties.

Well, with so many former fans not planning to attend any future Stones shows, it will much easier, and cheaper, for me to get an excellent seat from scalpers at the event.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
angee
I think it's interesting that some wonder whether or not Mick can sustain the energy for a long show, after
performing splendidly at the Grammys. To me there is little doubt that he can, less so than ever now.

Of course, a one-off is different from a whole show, and working with the rest of the Stones will be different
too.

given that when he was in his early sixties he had many health problems touring, causing several postponements and cancellations, i'm not sure how anyone can have any confidence that he'll have any better fortune in his late sixties.

I thought the bulk of those came from extra rehearsals for Marty's Shine A Light and added Beacon shows, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote
angee

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
angee
I think it's interesting that some wonder whether or not Mick can sustain the energy for a long show, after
performing splendidly at the Grammys. To me there is little doubt that he can, less so than ever now.

Of course, a one-off is different from a whole show, and working with the rest of the Stones will be different
too.

given that when he was in his early sixties he had many health problems touring, causing several postponements and cancellations, i'm not sure how anyone can have any confidence that he'll have any better fortune in his late sixties.

I thought the bulk of those came from extra rehearsals for Marty's Shine A Light and added Beacon shows, if I'm not mistaken.

some, not all. but the point remains the same, that i'm sure mick and the insurers are aware - trying to be "mick on stage" at almost 70 by the time a next tour might end is pretty risky. it's for reasons like that, i think, that many of us were a little disappointed the other night. i would so much rather see the band reinvent itself one time before it's over - as a musically-challenging (to themselves and their audience) band that focuses on music, not the spectacle. one where i walk away thinking about how well they played a given set, rather than how amazing and in shape the lead singer is....