Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
howled
As long as Mick includes a few "Alright's" and a few "Gas's" most of the audience is happy I think.

Maddening isn't it.

He got it down to a clipped "arrit na, ye in fa e a ga" in 1976.

I can't listen to his vocals from 1976.

I think he was bored, tired, wasted (torn and frayed) and thought he could get away with it by calling it punk.

I remember an interview he did around 1977/78 where he was asked what he thought of punk, he said "I've been doing that for years".

That wasn't punk. It was just unprofessional.

Vocally he very rarely (live) got back to the heights of 1968 - 1973.

I can see the point in the criticism you make, but I am more with Turd On The Run on this one. Especially the word "unprofessionalism" is something I don't find accurate one to use here. Yeah, maybe it is, in the sense they have been 'professionalistic' since 1989, especially taking Jagger's vocals into account. What I 'hate' in modern era is the artificial professionalism that always seem to go over the artistic expression. Jagger's vocals repsrent that so clearly. Yeah, he now is more careful in his prononcation, melody lines but somehow they left me a cold, not emotional effect. Like he doesn't 'live' those songs anymore but jus delivers them almost like a school boy attitude, the most important mark is that of being afraid of making mistakes. And to achieve that he seemingly have had vocal coaches who I suppose teach him how to raech the target (staying in tune) with minimal efforts. The latter is singing quitely, almost whispering'like sometimes, and then the effect of nasal that hides the weakness of the 'natural' voice, and makes it easier to reach the higher notes. Yeah, it sounds nice sometimes, especially in interpreting ballads, but in the worst cases he just leaves the impression of mimicing singing. In artistic terms, that makes me feel almost like cheating. The movie SHINE A LIGHT is a sad masterpiece of late-Jagger's genious in miming singing. Especially teh way he does his own classics, "Jumpin Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar" are paradigm cases in showing how to look and make an impression of rock singing, but actually putting minimal effort in both cases. All the energy goes to physical appearance (which is another story).

But in contrast, Jagger of 1975 was no cheater. His voice was out ther upfront to be heard and 'seen' in all of its rights and wrongs. To me Jagger of 1975 used his voice as an instrument of expression, of his own msusical, unique impression, maybe stronger then ever. That he was 'bored' (the term has lots of connotations)singing the obvios "Jumpin Jack Flash" was to be haerd in that inerpraetion. He challenged himself and us, the listeners. Yeah, we had already heard the perfect JJF; it was even officially manifested in YA-YA'S to anyone ever to know how JJF should soundlike if played correctly. But in 1975 that was a deal done - to 'prove' that they are as good as in 1969 or 1972 was not in anyone's mind. It would have sounded stupid and a sure mark of senility. The point was doing something else, going forward. Maybe they were a but confused what they should do now; their brilliant solo guitarist was just gone, and they wouldn't get any younger, only their biggest rivals of the day would do that. In GOATS HEAD SOAP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N*ROLL Jagger to an extent had exprimented the idea what a post-60's legend, the biggest band of the day might say now when the days of relevance were unwillingly left behind. This idea was further refleced in BLACK & BLUE, their probaly most 'mature' album ever.

What I hear in Jagger's voice of 1975 - and 1976 - is reflecting the status of his and his band and their music. In a way The Stones of 1975 is the wildest, rawest, nost decadent rock and roll band ever. Not any longer the leaders of the youth, or a voice of antiesablishment. or being in whatever way 'relevant'. No, just the dinosur of the hedonic life and music style they perfected: nothing but sex, drugs and rock&roll indeed. Nothing more, nothing less. That Jagger changed his singing style during the tour sounds like he was in the middle of a creative process; he wanted to find a 'right' way to deliver the thing, and proaly he just experimented intuitively or unconsciously, don't know. What he did I am sure he knew was controversial; that was 'punk' indeed (and more naturally than what he did in 1978). But I think he sounded real. He sounded like only the greatest and biggest rock and roll singer in the world can do. That dangerous, adventurous, challenging teaser was surely not any easy-listening by any counts. He puts himself there; he is 100% on the game. Judging today, it is a rather distant figure to the one we associate to "Mick Jagger", that harmless, politically correct, funny and sportic 'forever young' character we have now know say 25 yaers. But having afford to be that 'modern' ageless figure, what he then did in 1975 was monumental, an important chapter in his incrdebily story in perfecting the frontmanship in rock and roll. There is no one ever being in that position as Mick Jagger then was. No one have had balls or reputation enough to do what he did then.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-28 13:00 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
howled
As long as Mick includes a few "Alright's" and a few "Gas's" most of the audience is happy I think.

Maddening isn't it.

He got it down to a clipped "arrit na, ye in fa e a ga" in 1976.

I can't listen to his vocals from 1976.

I think he was bored, tired, wasted (torn and frayed) and thought he could get away with it by calling it punk.

I remember an interview he did around 1977/78 where he was asked what he thought of punk, he said "I've been doing that for years".

That wasn't punk. It was just unprofessional.

Vocally he very rarely (live) got back to the heights of 1968 - 1973.

I can see the point in the criticism you make, but I am more with Turd On The Run on this one. Especially the word "unprofessionalism" is something I don't find accurate one to use here. Yeah, maybe it is, in the sense they have been 'professionalistic' since 1989, especially taking Jagger's vocals into account. What I 'hate' in modern era is the artificial professionalism that always seem to go over the artistic expression. Jagger's vocals repsrent that so clearly. Yeah, he now is more careful in his prononcation, melody lines but somehow they left me a cold, not emotional effect. Like he doesn't 'live' those songs anymore but jus delivers them almost like a school boy attitude, the most important mark is that of being afraid of making mistakes. And to achieve that he seemingly have had vocal coaches who I suppose teach him how to raech the target (staying in tune) with minimal efforts. The latter is singing quitely, almost whispering'like sometimes, and then the effect of nasal that hides the weakness of the 'natural' voice, and makes it easier to reach the higher notes. Yeah, it sounds nice sometimes, especially in interpreting ballads, but in the worst cases he just leaves the impression of mimicing singing. In artistic terms, that makes me feel almost like cheating. The movie SHINE A LIGHT is a sad masterpiece of late-Jagger's genious in miming singing. Especially teh way he does his own classics, "Jumpin Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar" are paradigm cases in showing how to look and make an impression of rock singing, but actually putting minimal effort in both cases. All the energy goes to physical appearance (which is another story).

But in contrast, Jagger of 1975 was no cheater. His voice was out ther upfront to be heard and 'seen' in all of its rights and wrongs. To me Jagger of 1975 used his voice as an instrument of expression, of his own msusical, unique impression, maybe stronger then ever. That he was 'bored' (the term has lots of connotations)singing the obvios "Jumpin Jack Flash" was to be haerd in that inerpraetion. He challenged himself and us, the listeners. Yeah, we had already heard the perfect JJF; it was even officially manifested in YA-YA'S to anyone ever to know how JJF should soundlike if played correctly. But in 1975 that was a deal done - to 'prove' that they are as good as in 1969 or 1972 was not in anyone's mind. It would have sounded stupid and a sure mark of senility. The point was doing something else, going forward. Maybe they were a but confused what they should do now; their brilliant solo guitarist was just gone, and they wouldn't get any younger, only their biggest rivals of the day would do that. In GOATS HEAD SOAP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N*ROLL Jagger to an extent had exprimented the idea what a post-60's legend, the biggest band of the day might say now when the days of relevance were unwillingly left behind. This idea was further refleced in BLACK & BLUE, their probaly most 'mature' album ever.

What I hear in Jagger's voice of 1975 - and 1976 - is reflecting the status of his and his band and their music. In a way The Stones of 1975 is the wildest, rawest, nost decadent rock and roll band ever. Not any longer the leaders of the youth, or a voice of antiesablishment. or being in whatever way 'relevant'. No, just the dinosur of the hedonic life and music style they perfected: nothing but sex, drugs and rock&roll indeed. Nothing more, nothing less. That Jagger changed his singing style during the tour sounds like he was in the middle of a creative process; he wanted to find a 'right' way to deliver the thing, and proaly he just experimented intuitively or unconsciously, don't know. What he did I am sure he knew was controversial; that was 'punk' indeed (and more naturally than what he did in 1978). But I think he sounded real. He sounded like only the greatest and biggest rock and roll singer in the world can do. That dangerous, adventurous, challenging teaser was surely not any easy-listening by any counts. He puts himself there; he is 100% on the game. Judging today, it is a rather distant figure to the one we associate to "Mick Jagger", that harmless, politically correct, funny and sportic 'forever young' character we have now know say 25 yaers. But having afford to be that 'modern' ageless figure, what he then did in 1975 was monumental, an important chapter in his incrdebily story in perfecting the frontmanship in rock and roll. There is no one ever being in that position as Mick Jagger then was. No one have had balls or reputation enough to do what he did then.

- Doxa

Wow, Doxa. That 3rd paragraph is heavy. A heavy hitter in a great thread.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Wow, Doxa. That 3rd paragraph is heavy. A heavy hitter in a great thread.

Thanks. I might go over the top in some of my words, but I think now - at laest personally - that there is a demand for a profilic 1975 official release. We have been now treated with wonferful 1972/73 and 1978 releases. I take this wonderful thread - into which I can't really contribute than by just 'contextual' over-all points - also to a mark of the demand.

Over-all, I think the 1975/76 tour seem to be somehow blind spot among classical Stones tours. Somehow a lost case, or diffucut to put into categorises. Even myself I vary my opinion if it is the bext or worst rock and roll tour ever done. Good arguments for both views. The consensus seems to be that not many is really praising it very much. I take the reason to be that it somehow got lost between two eras (and 'ears'), and two different sounds of teh band. There are people - call them "Taylorities" - who judge from the base that the band is not any longer as great as it was during the 1969-73 phase. Just a degenarated band. But then there people who judge it from the base of Pathe marconi Era - call them "Woodities" - and the sound of the band live from 1978 to 1982 (the 'ancient art of weaving' etc.). For them the tour and its profilic document LOVE YOU LIVE was so 'out of time' immedeatily after 1978 when the band almost totally reinvented their sound (and charmed new audiences). So from the eyes of the old Tayloroties and the new Woodities there was something crucial missing in 1975 and 1976. (Personal note: me who came around in 1981 as a Wooditie by definition, the whole mid-70's period really marked a low period, and especially LOVE YOU LIVE sounded really 'bad' compared to, say, to legendary YAY-YA'S or even brand new STILL LIFE.)

Anyway, I think the time has now come to respect 1975/76 tour - and its differencies/nuances - in terms of its own. It was an intersting phase in the history and evolution of the band. What a beautiful decadence!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-28 14:47 by Doxa.

This is my gospel, written by Doxa. Thank you Doxa you are one of those who get it.

Quote
Doxa


I can see the point in the criticism you make, but I am more with Turd On The Run on this one. Especially the word "unprofessionalism" is something I don't find accurate one to use here. Yeah, maybe it is, in the sense they have been 'professionalistic' since 1989, especially taking Jagger's vocals into account. What I 'hate' in modern era is the artificial professionalism that always seem to go over the artistic expression. Jagger's vocals repsrent that so clearly. Yeah, he now is more careful in his prononcation, melody lines but somehow they left me a cold, not emotional effect. Like he doesn't 'live' those songs anymore but jus delivers them almost like a school boy attitude, the most important mark is that of being afraid of making mistakes. And to achieve that he seemingly have had vocal coaches who I suppose teach him how to raech the target (staying in tune) with minimal efforts. The latter is singing quitely, almost whispering'like sometimes, and then the effect of nasal that hides the weakness of the 'natural' voice, and makes it easier to reach the higher notes. Yeah, it sounds nice sometimes, especially in interpreting ballads, but in the worst cases he just leaves the impression of mimicing singing. In artistic terms, that makes me feel almost like cheating. The movie SHINE A LIGHT is a sad masterpiece of late-Jagger's genious in miming singing. Especially teh way he does his own classics, "Jumpin Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar" are paradigm cases in showing how to look and make an impression of rock singing, but actually putting minimal effort in both cases. All the energy goes to physical appearance (which is another story).

But in contrast, Jagger of 1975 was no cheater. His voice was out ther upfront to be heard and 'seen' in all of its rights and wrongs. To me Jagger of 1975 used his voice as an instrument of expression, of his own msusical, unique impression, maybe stronger then ever. That he was 'bored' (the term has lots of connotations)singing the obvios "Jumpin Jack Flash" was to be haerd in that inerpraetion. He challenged himself and us, the listeners. Yeah, we had already heard the perfect JJF; it was even officially manifested in YA-YA'S to anyone ever to know how JJF should soundlike if played correctly. But in 1975 that was a deal done - to 'prove' that they are as good as in 1969 or 1972 was not in anyone's mind. It would have sounded stupid and a sure mark of senility. The point was doing something else, going forward. Maybe they were a but confused what they should do now; their brilliant solo guitarist was just gone, and they wouldn't get any younger, only their biggest rivals of the day would do that. In GOATS HEAD SOAP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N*ROLL Jagger to an extent had exprimented the idea what a post-60's legend, the biggest band of the day might say now when the days of relevance were unwillingly left behind. This idea was further refleced in BLACK & BLUE, their probaly most 'mature' album ever.

What I hear in Jagger's voice of 1975 - and 1976 - is reflecting the status of his and his band and their music. In a way The Stones of 1975 is the wildest, rawest, nost decadent rock and roll band ever. Not any longer the leaders of the youth, or a voice of antiesablishment. or being in whatever way 'relevant'. No, just the dinosur of the hedonic life and music style they perfected: nothing but sex, drugs and rock&roll indeed. Nothing more, nothing less. That Jagger changed his singing style during the tour sounds like he was in the middle of a creative process; he wanted to find a 'right' way to deliver the thing, and proaly he just experimented intuitively or unconsciously, don't know. What he did I am sure he knew was controversial; that was 'punk' indeed (and more naturally than what he did in 1978). But I think he sounded real. He sounded like only the greatest and biggest rock and roll singer in the world can do. That dangerous, adventurous, challenging teaser was surely not any easy-listening by any counts. He puts himself there; he is 100% on the game. Judging today, it is a rather distant figure to the one we associate to "Mick Jagger", that harmless, politically correct, funny and sportic 'forever young' character we have now know say 25 yaers. But having afford to be that 'modern' ageless figure, what he then did in 1975 was monumental, an important chapter in his incrdebily story in perfecting the frontmanship in rock and roll. There is no one ever being in that position as Mick Jagger then was. No one have had balls or reputation enough to do what he did then.

- Doxa

What truly characterizes the 75/76 tour and makes it unique in the history of the Stones live is the Watts / Brown combo. The inlcusion of OB in the line up was genius. A drum battle that made the Stones funky as hell! Just any groove they played kicked like a wild horse. Love it!!!


C

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Wow, Doxa. That 3rd paragraph is heavy. A heavy hitter in a great thread.

Thanks. I might go over the top in some of my words, but I think now - at laest personally - that there is a demand for a profilic 1975 official release. We have been now treated with wonferful 1972/73 and 1978 releases. I take this wonderful thread - into which I can't really contribute than by just 'contextual' over-all points - also to a mark of the demand.

Over-all, I think the 1975/76 tour seem to be somehow blind spot among classical Stones tours. Somehow a lost case, or diffucut to put into categorises. Even myself I vary my opinion if it is the bext or worst rock and roll tour ever done. Good arguments for both views. The consensus seems to be that not many is really praising it very much. I take the reason to be that it somehow got lost between two eras (and 'ears'), and two different sounds of teh band. There are people - call them "Taylorities" - who judge from the base that the band is not any longer as great as it was during the 1969-73 phase. Just a degenarated band. But then there people who judge it from the base of Pathe marconi Era - call them "Woodities" - and the sound of the band live from 1978 to 1982 (the 'ancient art of weaving' etc.). For them the tour and its profilic document LOVE YOU LIVE was so 'out of time' immedeatily after 1978 when the band almost totally reinvented their sound (and charmed new audiences). So from the eyes of the old Tayloroties and the new Woodities there was something crucial missing in 1975 and 1976. (Personal note: me who came around in 1981 as a Wooditie by definition, the whole mid-70's period really marked a low period, and especially LOVE YOU LIVE sounded really 'bad' compared to, say, to legendary YAY-YA'S or even brand new STILL LIFE.)

Anyway, I think the time has now come to respect 1975/76 tour - and its differencies/nuances - in terms of its own. It was an intersting phase in the history and evolution of the band. What a beautiful decadence!

- Doxa

For years I judged, and dismissed, the 75 tour based on 'Love You Live' because that's all I had to go on. When I first got into bootlegs, I wanted all the legendary 69-73 stuff I had heard about. I finally got around to listening to the Ft. Collins show (with Reg from Waterford) and it totally changed my view. Awesome guitar driven rock - not a horn to be found. Monster Ampeg tone, blistering solos from Ronnie, cool percussion driven intro to SFM, powerful outro on TD. Mick's vocals are rushed/ragged in spots, but the guitars are awesome. I listen to this and a few other 75 recordings as much as anything from 69-73.

Quote
Crackinup

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Wow, Doxa. That 3rd paragraph is heavy. A heavy hitter in a great thread.

Thanks. I might go over the top in some of my words, but I think now - at laest personally - that there is a demand for a profilic 1975 official release. We have been now treated with wonferful 1972/73 and 1978 releases. I take this wonderful thread - into which I can't really contribute than by just 'contextual' over-all points - also to a mark of the demand.

Over-all, I think the 1975/76 tour seem to be somehow blind spot among classical Stones tours. Somehow a lost case, or diffucut to put into categorises. Even myself I vary my opinion if it is the bext or worst rock and roll tour ever done. Good arguments for both views. The consensus seems to be that not many is really praising it very much. I take the reason to be that it somehow got lost between two eras (and 'ears'), and two different sounds of teh band. There are people - call them "Taylorities" - who judge from the base that the band is not any longer as great as it was during the 1969-73 phase. Just a degenarated band. But then there people who judge it from the base of Pathe marconi Era - call them "Woodities" - and the sound of the band live from 1978 to 1982 (the 'ancient art of weaving' etc.). For them the tour and its profilic document LOVE YOU LIVE was so 'out of time' immedeatily after 1978 when the band almost totally reinvented their sound (and charmed new audiences). So from the eyes of the old Tayloroties and the new Woodities there was something crucial missing in 1975 and 1976. (Personal note: me who came around in 1981 as a Wooditie by definition, the whole mid-70's period really marked a low period, and especially LOVE YOU LIVE sounded really 'bad' compared to, say, to legendary YAY-YA'S or even brand new STILL LIFE.)

Anyway, I think the time has now come to respect 1975/76 tour - and its differencies/nuances - in terms of its own. It was an intersting phase in the history and evolution of the band. What a beautiful decadence!

- Doxa

For years I judged, and dismissed, the 75 tour based on 'Love You Live' because that's all I had to go on. When I first got into bootlegs, I wanted all the legendary 69-73 stuff I had heard about. I finally got around to listening to the Ft. Collins show (with Reg from Waterford) and it totally changed my view. Awesome guitar driven rock - not a horn to be found. Monster Ampeg tone, blistering solos from Ronnie, cool percussion driven intro to SFM, powerful outro on TD. Mick's vocals are rushed/ragged in spots, but the guitars are awesome. I listen to this and a few other 75 recordings as much as anything from 69-73.

Aside from the conversation of Jagger's vocal arrangements regarding the 75 tour, from the many 75 boot shows I have listened to over the years, I agree that Ronnie's playing on that tour was awesome. Whether it was new guy trying to prove himself or whatever, IMHO, most nights he was on!

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, I think the time has now come to respect 1975/76 tour - and its differencies/nuances - in terms of its own. It- Doxa

Great post, Doxa! (not the part I quoted, but the rest)
But for christ sake, leave 1976 out of this



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-29 10:08 by Erik_Snow.

The '75 tour, with all it's faults, was still great. There were bad nights, sure, and it probably gets a bad rep from that awful L.A. 7/11/75 video that circulates. It's one of, if not the worst show of the tour.

1976 on the other hand was very different. Many of the great aspects of the '75 tour were gone. The '76 Europe jaunt wasn't entirely bad, but it was very different than '75.

Some nights of the 76 tour are awsome, some songs are among their golden live moments. Hot Stuff sounded fantastic in 1976 and only in 1976. You Gotta MOve was great. There are others of course.

Quote
liddas
What truly characterizes the 75/76 tour and makes it unique in the history of the Stones live is the Watts / Brown combo. The inlcusion of OB in the line up was genius. A drum battle that made the Stones funky as hell! Just any groove they played kicked like a wild horse. Love it!!!


C

I don't quite agree with this. When it worked it was pretty good; maybe even more than that. But I found two weak spots with the percussion set-up: a) in many songs it just isn't called for. The Stones are often a raunchy rock band. yes; they have always expanded their musical palette. Especially the newer material from Black & Blue was good with Ollie. But then it was written in that very period. Reggae, that was creeping in also worked. But material like "Starfcker" or Blues numbers it cluttered. IMO.
Maybe if they had featured the percussion driven tunes as just that. Which brings me to second point: when it DOES work, they never really get it going. That has always bugged me a bit about "Heartbreaker". "If You Can't Rock me" - that the breaks don't get any steam going. It's a lot of music crammed into too few bars.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
howled
As long as Mick includes a few "Alright's" and a few "Gas's" most of the audience is happy I think.

Maddening isn't it.

He got it down to a clipped "arrit na, ye in fa e a ga" in 1976.

I can't listen to his vocals from 1976.

I think he was bored, tired, wasted (torn and frayed) and thought he could get away with it by calling it punk.

I remember an interview he did around 1977/78 where he was asked what he thought of punk, he said "I've been doing that for years".

That wasn't punk. It was just unprofessional.

Vocally he very rarely (live) got back to the heights of 1968 - 1973.

I can see the point in the criticism you make, but I am more with Turd On The Run on this one. Especially the word "unprofessionalism" is something I don't find accurate one to use here. Yeah, maybe it is, in the sense they have been 'professionalistic' since 1989, especially taking Jagger's vocals into account. What I 'hate' in modern era is the artificial professionalism that always seem to go over the artistic expression. Jagger's vocals repsrent that so clearly. Yeah, he now is more careful in his prononcation, melody lines but somehow they left me a cold, not emotional effect. Like he doesn't 'live' those songs anymore but jus delivers them almost like a school boy attitude, the most important mark is that of being afraid of making mistakes. And to achieve that he seemingly have had vocal coaches who I suppose teach him how to raech the target (staying in tune) with minimal efforts. The latter is singing quitely, almost whispering'like sometimes, and then the effect of nasal that hides the weakness of the 'natural' voice, and makes it easier to reach the higher notes. Yeah, it sounds nice sometimes, especially in interpreting ballads, but in the worst cases he just leaves the impression of mimicing singing. In artistic terms, that makes me feel almost like cheating. The movie SHINE A LIGHT is a sad masterpiece of late-Jagger's genious in miming singing. Especially teh way he does his own classics, "Jumpin Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar" are paradigm cases in showing how to look and make an impression of rock singing, but actually putting minimal effort in both cases. All the energy goes to physical appearance (which is another story).

But in contrast, Jagger of 1975 was no cheater. His voice was out ther upfront to be heard and 'seen' in all of its rights and wrongs. To me Jagger of 1975 used his voice as an instrument of expression, of his own msusical, unique impression, maybe stronger then ever. That he was 'bored' (the term has lots of connotations)singing the obvios "Jumpin Jack Flash" was to be haerd in that inerpraetion. He challenged himself and us, the listeners. Yeah, we had already heard the perfect JJF; it was even officially manifested in YA-YA'S to anyone ever to know how JJF should soundlike if played correctly. But in 1975 that was a deal done - to 'prove' that they are as good as in 1969 or 1972 was not in anyone's mind. It would have sounded stupid and a sure mark of senility. The point was doing something else, going forward. Maybe they were a but confused what they should do now; their brilliant solo guitarist was just gone, and they wouldn't get any younger, only their biggest rivals of the day would do that. In GOATS HEAD SOAP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N*ROLL Jagger to an extent had exprimented the idea what a post-60's legend, the biggest band of the day might say now when the days of relevance were unwillingly left behind. This idea was further refleced in BLACK & BLUE, their probaly most 'mature' album ever.

What I hear in Jagger's voice of 1975 - and 1976 - is reflecting the status of his and his band and their music. In a way The Stones of 1975 is the wildest, rawest, nost decadent rock and roll band ever. Not any longer the leaders of the youth, or a voice of antiesablishment. or being in whatever way 'relevant'. No, just the dinosur of the hedonic life and music style they perfected: nothing but sex, drugs and rock&roll indeed. Nothing more, nothing less. That Jagger changed his singing style during the tour sounds like he was in the middle of a creative process; he wanted to find a 'right' way to deliver the thing, and proaly he just experimented intuitively or unconsciously, don't know. What he did I am sure he knew was controversial; that was 'punk' indeed (and more naturally than what he did in 1978). But I think he sounded real. He sounded like only the greatest and biggest rock and roll singer in the world can do. That dangerous, adventurous, challenging teaser was surely not any easy-listening by any counts. He puts himself there; he is 100% on the game. Judging today, it is a rather distant figure to the one we associate to "Mick Jagger", that harmless, politically correct, funny and sportic 'forever young' character we have now know say 25 yaers. But having afford to be that 'modern' ageless figure, what he then did in 1975 was monumental, an important chapter in his incrdebily story in perfecting the frontmanship in rock and roll. There is no one ever being in that position as Mick Jagger then was. No one have had balls or reputation enough to do what he did then.

- Doxa

wonderfull!!

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, I think the time has now come to respect 1975/76 tour - and its differencies/nuances - in terms of its own. It- Doxa

Great post, Doxa! (not the part I quoted, but the rest)
But for christ sake, leave 1976 out of this

Hi Erik, you shouldn't have edited off the last part of your post (you hit some truth there)!

But certainly you have a point in making the distinction between the tours. It is a bit like between 1972 and 1973 tours, being different and having (to an extent) an own identity. But not qualitywise since between 72 and 73 it is an open question, while 75 is seen clearly better than 76 for a good reason. The fact that both 73 and 76 have a new studio album to promote gives them an unique feeling. But still there seems to be more similarities between the tours: the same opening numbers, the same grand finale, the same band in terms of personnel, the same Jagger manouvres etc. Conceptually they didn't much change the band in 1976 (nor in 1973), just updated some 'recent' numbers in the list.

If we think that both 1973 and 1976 tours continued the tendencies of earlier American tours, in 1973 the question was that of playing technically even more and more challenging way (especially Taylor) and 'rocking harder' (the band being as close as possible to a classical 'hard rock' band ever), in 1976 they continued the sloppiness of some 1975 tour features. I think the same concept still included Knebworth and El Mocambo (sic) performances, they just added some old r&b covers to the list. Some people seem to hear something 1978-like already in El Mocambo 77 - maybe something to do with energy level and vitality - but I think the concept and basic sound is very much still that created in 1975, only slightly developed and varied. As living and breathing bands tend to do.

So in my vision I see the 1975/77 making altogether an era of its own, very much different from the eras prior and after it. But yeah, the greatness varies quite dramatically within the era.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
howled
As long as Mick includes a few "Alright's" and a few "Gas's" most of the audience is happy I think.

Maddening isn't it.

He got it down to a clipped "arrit na, ye in fa e a ga" in 1976.

I can't listen to his vocals from 1976.

I think he was bored, tired, wasted (torn and frayed) and thought he could get away with it by calling it punk.

I remember an interview he did around 1977/78 where he was asked what he thought of punk, he said "I've been doing that for years".



That wasn't punk. It was just unprofessional.

Vocally he very rarely (live) got back to the heights of 1968 - 1973.

I can see the point in the criticism you make, but I am more with Turd On The Run on this one. Especially the word "unprofessionalism" is something I don't find accurate one to use here. Yeah, maybe it is, in the sense they have been 'professionalistic' since 1989, especially taking Jagger's vocals into account. What I 'hate' in modern era is the artificial professionalism that always seem to go over the artistic expression. Jagger's vocals repsrent that so clearly. Yeah, he now is more careful in his prononcation, melody lines but somehow they left me a cold, not emotional effect. Like he doesn't 'live' those songs anymore but jus delivers them almost like a school boy attitude, the most important mark is that of being afraid of making mistakes. And to achieve that he seemingly have had vocal coaches who I suppose teach him how to raech the target (staying in tune) with minimal efforts. The latter is singing quitely, almost whispering'like sometimes, and then the effect of nasal that hides the weakness of the 'natural' voice, and makes it easier to reach the higher notes. Yeah, it sounds nice sometimes, especially in interpreting ballads, but in the worst cases he just leaves the impression of mimicing singing. In artistic terms, that makes me feel almost like cheating. The movie SHINE A LIGHT is a sad masterpiece of late-Jagger's genious in miming singing. Especially teh way he does his own classics, "Jumpin Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar" are paradigm cases in showing how to look and make an impression of rock singing, but actually putting minimal effort in both cases. All the energy goes to physical appearance (which is another story).

But in contrast, Jagger of 1975 was no cheater. His voice was out ther upfront to be heard and 'seen' in all of its rights and wrongs. To me Jagger of 1975 used his voice as an instrument of expression, of his own msusical, unique impression, maybe stronger then ever. That he was 'bored' (the term has lots of connotations)singing the obvios "Jumpin Jack Flash" was to be haerd in that inerpraetion. He challenged himself and us, the listeners. Yeah, we had already heard the perfect JJF; it was even officially manifested in YA-YA'S to anyone ever to know how JJF should soundlike if played correctly. But in 1975 that was a deal done - to 'prove' that they are as good as in 1969 or 1972 was not in anyone's mind. It would have sounded stupid and a sure mark of senility. The point was doing something else, going forward. Maybe they were a but confused what they should do now; their brilliant solo guitarist was just gone, and they wouldn't get any younger, only their biggest rivals of the day would do that. In GOATS HEAD SOAP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N*ROLL Jagger to an extent had exprimented the idea what a post-60's legend, the biggest band of the day might say now when the days of relevance were unwillingly left behind. This idea was further refleced in BLACK & BLUE, their probaly most 'mature' album ever.

What I hear in Jagger's voice of 1975 - and 1976 - is reflecting the status of his and his band and their music. In a way The Stones of 1975 is the wildest, rawest, nost decadent rock and roll band ever. Not any longer the leaders of the youth, or a voice of antiesablishment. or being in whatever way 'relevant'. No, just the dinosur of the hedonic life and music style they perfected: nothing but sex, drugs and rock&roll indeed. Nothing more, nothing less. That Jagger changed his singing style during the tour sounds like he was in the middle of a creative process; he wanted to find a 'right' way to deliver the thing, and proaly he just experimented intuitively or unconsciously, don't know. What he did I am sure he knew was controversial; that was 'punk' indeed (and more naturally than what he did in 1978). But I think he sounded real. He sounded like only the greatest and biggest rock and roll singer in the world can do. That dangerous, adventurous, challenging teaser was surely not any easy-listening by any counts. He puts himself there; he is 100% on the game. Judging today, it is a rather distant figure to the one we associate to "Mick Jagger", that harmless, politically correct, funny and sportic 'forever young' character we have now know say 25 yaers. But having afford to be that 'modern' ageless figure, what he then did in 1975 was monumental, an important chapter in his incrdebily story in perfecting the frontmanship in rock and roll. There is no one ever being in that position as Mick Jagger then was. No one have had balls or reputation enough to do what he did then.

- Doxa

So Doxa thinks that Jagger's vocalizing "changes" (in my opinion decline would be a more apt description) were an artistic decision and part of a "creative process"? I always felt that this "decision" (the dramatic difference I noticed in Jagger's singing from the start of 1975's TOTA to the middle and later sections, and the subsequent 1976 European Tour) was a negation of the creative process. Going from a ferocious, vital vocalist to one frequently reduced to carelessly growling out fragments of lyrics whilst flouncing about in pajama pants...cutting out a lot of the (previously reached) high notes and often most semblance of harmony...the devolution into this kind of singer in mid-tour can be interpreted as Mick being a badass making a challenging "artistic decision" (as Doxa submits)...or perhaps something else.

Here is a theory...I have noticed that Jagger's singing changed abruptly as the Stones hit New York. The bootlegs I have heard of shows prior to the New York shows (Buffalo, specifically...a week before the New York stand) show Jagger to be in brilliant vocal form -- fundamentally equal to his work in the later shows of the spectacular 1973 European Tour. Suddenly the Stones hit New York and the singing down-shifts to a new style...the flat, sing/speak voice on some songs...the growl becomes magnified...the register is lower on a lot of songs. (I must add that I attended 2 of the New York shows)

What happened during the week since the Buffalo show (15.6.1975) and / or in the 4 days between the last Toronto show (18.6.1975) and the first New York show (22.6.1975). Why the radical change? Drugs? Exhaustion? Illness? Played-out vocal chords? The Stones had played a packed schedule at the start of the TOTA...13 shows between the 1st and 18th of June, crossing the American continent from Texas to Canada. Was Jagger simply gassed? Or was it perhaps that the Stones, for the first time ever (at least since their club days in the early 1960's) had a 6-night stand -- a record at the time -- without a break in (arguably) their most important market (New York) followed by 6 quick shows in 9 days before yet another crucial long stand (5 nights without a break) in arguably their second most important market (Los Angeles)...followed in quick succession by another 16 shows in about 3 weeks traveling all over the country...(just writing this makes me feel exhausted!) and Jagger saw that -- at this pace -- he could no longer challenge his voice with the strain of his savage style of singing at that level night after night without losing it and / or permanently damaging it...thus possibly blowing the tour (and the stones' cred) or worse, the Stones' future work (much like Robert Plant's vocal decline around this time diminished Zep greatly).

My theory is that Jagger, seeing this insane schedule and taking into account that the 1975 shows were by far the longest in the Stones career, (fundamentally double the length of the last tours) made a decision to "shut down" the Peak-Jaggger voice and, in the spirit of vocal-chord/voice conservation -- and being able to finish the tour without any missed shows and/or permanent vocal damage -- altered his vocal style to fit the rigors of the TOTA schedule...and, much like an athlete leaving his absolute prime and facing a challenging schedule to his athleticism, he decided to "pick his spots" and husband his resources for the long-term...thus the Jagger mid-70's voice. He shut down peak-Jagger voice and "cheated" by cutting vocal corners and affecting a completely new sining style...one that was built for the long-haul of massive tours and nearly 3 hour concerts. There was no other way to survive with voice (somewhat) intact.

*One caveat...it is clear in retrospect that Jagger was already regularly adopting the "growl" style of singing and had already used it on the not-yet-released Black and Blue album (actually recorded before the 1975 TOTA). It is also clear that with age his voice had deepened.

It is also interesting to note that his voice regained a lot (not all) of its register and suppleness in 1978 (especially evident in the Fort Worth, Texas concert, or the Memphis show)...the American tour was far shorter and the concerts were half the length of the 1975/76 shows...he could push it a little more again...

TOTR,

I think you mostly have it.

I think also he figured out that it didn't seem to matter much how he sang live and he was a bit bored anyway.

If you can get away with it, why bother.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-03 00:14 by GravityBoy.

Quote
Turd On The Run

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
howled
As long as Mick includes a few "Alright's" and a few "Gas's" most of the audience is happy I think.

Maddening isn't it.

He got it down to a clipped "arrit na, ye in fa e a ga" in 1976.

I can't listen to his vocals from 1976.

I think he was bored, tired, wasted (torn and frayed) and thought he could get away with it by calling it punk.

I remember an interview he did around 1977/78 where he was asked what he thought of punk, he said "I've been doing that for years".



That wasn't punk. It was just unprofessional.

Vocally he very rarely (live) got back to the heights of 1968 - 1973.

I can see the point in the criticism you make, but I am more with Turd On The Run on this one. Especially the word "unprofessionalism" is something I don't find accurate one to use here. Yeah, maybe it is, in the sense they have been 'professionalistic' since 1989, especially taking Jagger's vocals into account. What I 'hate' in modern era is the artificial professionalism that always seem to go over the artistic expression. Jagger's vocals repsrent that so clearly. Yeah, he now is more careful in his prononcation, melody lines but somehow they left me a cold, not emotional effect. Like he doesn't 'live' those songs anymore but jus delivers them almost like a school boy attitude, the most important mark is that of being afraid of making mistakes. And to achieve that he seemingly have had vocal coaches who I suppose teach him how to raech the target (staying in tune) with minimal efforts. The latter is singing quitely, almost whispering'like sometimes, and then the effect of nasal that hides the weakness of the 'natural' voice, and makes it easier to reach the higher notes. Yeah, it sounds nice sometimes, especially in interpreting ballads, but in the worst cases he just leaves the impression of mimicing singing. In artistic terms, that makes me feel almost like cheating. The movie SHINE A LIGHT is a sad masterpiece of late-Jagger's genious in miming singing. Especially teh way he does his own classics, "Jumpin Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar" are paradigm cases in showing how to look and make an impression of rock singing, but actually putting minimal effort in both cases. All the energy goes to physical appearance (which is another story).

But in contrast, Jagger of 1975 was no cheater. His voice was out ther upfront to be heard and 'seen' in all of its rights and wrongs. To me Jagger of 1975 used his voice as an instrument of expression, of his own msusical, unique impression, maybe stronger then ever. That he was 'bored' (the term has lots of connotations)singing the obvios "Jumpin Jack Flash" was to be haerd in that inerpraetion. He challenged himself and us, the listeners. Yeah, we had already heard the perfect JJF; it was even officially manifested in YA-YA'S to anyone ever to know how JJF should soundlike if played correctly. But in 1975 that was a deal done - to 'prove' that they are as good as in 1969 or 1972 was not in anyone's mind. It would have sounded stupid and a sure mark of senility. The point was doing something else, going forward. Maybe they were a but confused what they should do now; their brilliant solo guitarist was just gone, and they wouldn't get any younger, only their biggest rivals of the day would do that. In GOATS HEAD SOAP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N*ROLL Jagger to an extent had exprimented the idea what a post-60's legend, the biggest band of the day might say now when the days of relevance were unwillingly left behind. This idea was further refleced in BLACK & BLUE, their probaly most 'mature' album ever.

What I hear in Jagger's voice of 1975 - and 1976 - is reflecting the status of his and his band and their music. In a way The Stones of 1975 is the wildest, rawest, nost decadent rock and roll band ever. Not any longer the leaders of the youth, or a voice of antiesablishment. or being in whatever way 'relevant'. No, just the dinosur of the hedonic life and music style they perfected: nothing but sex, drugs and rock&roll indeed. Nothing more, nothing less. That Jagger changed his singing style during the tour sounds like he was in the middle of a creative process; he wanted to find a 'right' way to deliver the thing, and proaly he just experimented intuitively or unconsciously, don't know. What he did I am sure he knew was controversial; that was 'punk' indeed (and more naturally than what he did in 1978). But I think he sounded real. He sounded like only the greatest and biggest rock and roll singer in the world can do. That dangerous, adventurous, challenging teaser was surely not any easy-listening by any counts. He puts himself there; he is 100% on the game. Judging today, it is a rather distant figure to the one we associate to "Mick Jagger", that harmless, politically correct, funny and sportic 'forever young' character we have now know say 25 yaers. But having afford to be that 'modern' ageless figure, what he then did in 1975 was monumental, an important chapter in his incrdebily story in perfecting the frontmanship in rock and roll. There is no one ever being in that position as Mick Jagger then was. No one have had balls or reputation enough to do what he did then.

- Doxa

So Doxa thinks that Jagger's vocalizing "changes" (in my opinion decline would be a more apt description) were an artistic decision and part of a "creative process"? I always felt that this "decision" (the dramatic difference I noticed in Jagger's singing from the start of 1975's TOTA to the middle and later sections, and the subsequent 1976 European Tour) was a negation of the creative process. Going from a ferocious, vital vocalist to one frequently reduced to carelessly growling out fragments of lyrics whilst flouncing about in pajama pants...cutting out a lot of the (previously reached) high notes and often most semblance of harmony...the devolution into this kind of singer in mid-tour can be interpreted as Mick being a badass making a challenging "artistic decision" (as Doxa submits)...or perhaps something else.

Here is a theory...I have noticed that Jagger's singing changed abruptly as the Stones hit New York. The bootlegs I have heard of shows prior to the New York shows (Buffalo, specifically...a week before the New York stand) show Jagger to be in brilliant vocal form -- fundamentally equal to his work in the later shows of the spectacular 1973 European Tour. Suddenly the Stones hit New York and the singing down-shifts to a new style...the flat, sing/speak voice on some songs...the growl becomes magnified...the register is lower on a lot of songs. (I must add that I attended 2 of the New York shows)

What happened during the week since the Buffalo show (15.6.1975) and / or in the 4 days between the last Toronto show (18.6.1975) and the first New York show (22.6.1975). Why the radical change? Drugs? Exhaustion? Illness? Played-out vocal chords? The Stones had played a packed schedule at the start of the TOTA...13 shows between the 1st and 18th of June, crossing the American continent from Texas to Canada. Was Jagger simply gassed? Or was it perhaps that the Stones, for the first time ever (at least since their club days in the early 1960's) had a 6-night stand -- a record at the time -- without a break in (arguably) their most important market (New York) followed by 6 quick shows in 9 days before yet another crucial long stand (5 nights without a break) in arguably their second most important market (Los Angeles)...followed in quick succession by another 16 shows in about 3 weeks traveling all over the country...(just writing this makes me feel exhausted!) and Jagger saw that -- at this pace -- he could no longer challenge his voice with the strain of his savage style of singing at that level night after night without losing it and / or permanently damaging it...thus possibly blowing the tour (and the stones' cred) or worse, the Stones' future work (much like Robert Plant's vocal decline around this time diminished Zep greatly).

My theory is that Jagger, seeing this insane schedule and taking into account that the 1975 shows were by far the longest in the Stones career, (fundamentally double the length of the last tours) made a decision to "shut down" the Peak-Jaggger voice and, in the spirit of vocal-chord/voice conservation -- and being able to finish the tour without any missed shows and/or permanent vocal damage -- altered his vocal style to fit the rigors of the TOTA schedule...and, much like an athlete leaving his absolute prime and facing a schedule challenging to his athleticism, he decided to "pick his spots" and husband his resources for the long-term...thus the Jagger mid-70's voice. He shut down peak-Jagger voice and "cheated" by cutting vocal corners and affecting a completely new singing style...one that was built for the long-haul of massive tours and nearly 3 hour concerts. There was no other way to survive with voice (somewhat) intact.

*One caveat...it is clear in retrospect that Jagger was already regularly adopting the "growl" style of singing and had already used it on the not-yet-released Black and Blue album (actually recorded before the 1975 TOTA). It is also clear that with age his voice had deepened.

It is also interesting to note that his voice regained a lot (not all) of its register and suppleness in 1978 (especially evident in the Fort Worth, Texas concert, or the Memphis show)...the American tour was far shorter and the concerts were half the length of the 1975/76 shows...he could push it a little more again...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-03 00:51 by Turd On The Run.

Why does everyone slag of LYL?!?!?!

IMHO it's their best an' most original live album, and the versions of Dice, Starf*cker, IORR, BS, YGM, IYCRM and LRR are the best ever. Only YCAGWYW and Sympathy are substandard.

+ IT IS A TRUE DOCUMENT with the added excitement of Ollie B, alright a few overdubbs but so was Ya-Yas recorded. And Ya-Yas is overrated, Charlie has still to find his REAL groove and two Chuck Berry covers of 10 ossible songs are too few originals when considering LIV is also included. Only Sympathy and SFM on Ya-Yas are the best versions they ever released.

But yeah, Baton Rogue, Toronto or Buffalo (1st) 1975 for a 3rd archive release?? YES PLEASE!

1975 was when Mick began his transition from self-destructive to health-conscious...

From destroying his throat to preserving and protecting it...

So therefore (at shows) from being primarily a vocalist to primarily a theatricalist...

What you hear and love about Jagger's singing at shows during the Golden Age
is literally him destroying his vocal chords to please you. He did some permanent
harm to himself and would have ended his career if he persisted. Instead from
1975 on he has wisely reserved most of his vocal gymnastics for his studio work,
while also taking singing lessons and being under the constant watch of throat
specialists.

Quote
superrevvy
while also taking singing lessons

Coach: "Mick... Mick... you're moving your lips and tongue too much... it's 'ga' not gas... it's 'bra sure' not "brown sugar'... this is a marathon not a sprint... did you just sing a note above D... stop that right now... one note... just sing one note... keep it simple... no one will notice... run around instead and pretend you are exhausted... good boy.."

According to Keith, the only thing Mick asked to be taken out of Life was
that he takes singing lessons. Never said a word about the dick thing.

And the lessons' primary focus is throat preservation. Then secondarily
what's the most he can get out of his throat if he takes really good care of it.

So yeah, the first step would be to sing as little as possible until the
healing had occured and the exercises could begin.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-03 09:51 by superrevvy.

Quote
Doxa
That Jagger changed his singing style during the tour sounds like he was in the middle of a creative process;- Doxa

You make many great points, Doxa, but i'm really not sure Jagger was in a creative process with regards to his singing on the 75 tour. Whatever may have been the reason for his vocal phrasing etc. i believe he'd pretty much lost his muse by this point. Anyone listening to IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL and BLACK AND BLUE will be struck by the fact that the Stones were pretty much unsure of where to take their sound during this period, and although there were flirtations with funk and reggae, amongst other influences, there was generally also a true lack of conviction. Jagger during the 75 tour, to me, sounds fatigued and not especially as finely tuned as he was on those previous tours. Drugs may have played a part, of course, and as you suggest, there may also have been the feeling that the Stones were unlikely to ever top their previous tours from the early seventies period, so what the hell!! Yes, there are jamaican influences within Jagger's singing, and a rawness, yet those elements tend to lack any real shape and form. They pretty much represent a vocal approach, which hadn't really been thought through, unlike the more complimentary 'rock' voice Jagger managed to adopt on those earlier tours. Yes, i'd agree, however, i'd still very much have Jagger's 75 voice any day, than his later, more disciplined 'vegas' voice, because he certainly didn't sound the corporate rock star at this point. There was an authenicity within Jagger's singing then, a sort of decadent swagger, even if he was no longer fully inspired. I'm not so sure about superrevvy's view that Jagger was actually saving his voice on the 75 tour, because Jagger actually sounded very raw and undisciplined for much of the time, which is very much the antithesis of a more measured approach to taking care of himself. Jagger sounds like he's not perhaps hitting the notes because he's too much out of it, or just couldn't be bothered, than a more calculated reason in having the objective of saving his voice.

The only way you guys are right is that he did turn the whole throat problem
into an artistic statement, rather than just taking time off, seeing a
specialist, and then trying to go back to what he did before.

It was full speed ahead, throat problems be damned. Or rather, throat problems
be managed, and extreme physical showmanship be substituted.

Emphasis on "extreme physical showmanship". That's what puts the lie to all this
nonsense about him being disinterested or whatever the fcuk you guys are trying
to say. The truth is he never worked harder than on that 75 tour.

I happen to be in the HAMPTON '81 mood very much at the moment that I unfortunately can't put my mind properly to this topic now. I hope one of the following archive releases will make the theme of this thread hot again.... But the great posts, with very good points, here deserve some kind of reply.

Turn On The Run, superrevy and Edward Twining all seem to oppose my "Jagger's anti-singing was an artistic choice" theory and all of them with good arguments. I admit I probably went over the top as I already said; I guess there surely is truth in Jagger just he consciously "shut down" the peak voice to manage the new tour routine, and thereby was "preserving and protecing" his voice, and that he artistically speaking had a "decline" or "losing his muse". Anyway, the last point doesn't really differ from the point I tried to argue. Being tired and bored, and to an extent without a focus, was also a kind of "artistic mark" in my book. That was not tried to hide in his vocals, but was very upfront. It was an artistic choice to let that happen, to be heard. That was what I tried to say, but not properly enough. Anyway, being inconsistent or not, I can't say that I disagree what Edward Twining says in his post. What goes for the theory about preserving the voice consciously, that makes very much sense. But two things that immedeatily comes to mind opposing this idea.

The first is that even though the tour was longer, the sets were longer and sometimes played in constant daily run in 1975, it wasn't easy for Jagger's voice in earlier tours either. I think especially during the times they did two shows in a night, for example the famous concerts in new York 1969 and Brussels 1973. Jagger's voice survived, but perhaps he might have been conscious of the dangers by 1975? That's only a guess, though.

The other point which speaks half of 'artistic choice' is the vocal overdubs in LOVE YOU LIVE. Why on earth he wanted to maintain that 'anti-singing' in a high-profile release if the point as only saving the voice? Knowing Jagger's drive for perfection I find that kind of odd. My theory is that it was an artistic choice there. He wanted to sing that way, or to be sound like that, during the time.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-03 12:53 by Doxa.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa
That Jagger changed his singing style during the tour sounds like he was in the middle of a creative process;- Doxa

You make many great points, Doxa, but i'm really not sure Jagger was in a creative process with regards to his singing on the 75 tour. Whatever may have been the reason for his vocal phrasing etc. i believe he'd pretty much lost his muse by this point. Anyone listening to IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL and BLACK AND BLUE will be struck by the fact that the Stones were pretty much unsure of where to take their sound during this period, and although there were flirtations with funk and reggae, amongst other influences, there was generally also a true lack of conviction. Jagger during the 75 tour, to me, sounds fatigued and not especially as finely tuned as he was on those previous tours. Drugs may have played a part, of course, and as you suggest, there may also have been the feeling that the Stones were unlikely to ever top their previous tours from the early seventies period, so what the hell!! Yes, there are jamaican influences within Jagger's singing, and a rawness, yet those elements tend to lack any real shape and form. They pretty much represent a vocal approach, which hadn't really been thought through, unlike the more complimentary 'rock' voice Jagger managed to adopt on those earlier tours. Yes, i'd agree, however, i'd still very much have Jagger's 75 voice any day, than his later, more disciplined 'vegas' voice, because he certainly didn't sound the corporate rock star at this point. There was an authenicity within Jagger's singing then, a sort of decadent swagger, even if he was no longer fully inspired. I'm not so sure about superrevvy's view that Jagger was actually saving his voice on the 75 tour, because Jagger actually sounded very raw and undisciplined for much of the time, which is very much the antithesis of a more measured approach to taking care of himself. Jagger sounds like he's not perhaps hitting the notes because he's too much out of it, or just couldn't be bothered, than a more calculated reason in having the objective of saving his voice.

First show of the 1981 tour. Mick sings differently but also pretty insecure or just too coked up to focus on one style. Great show but also quite telling I think. Of course I love 1975 and he sang a lot better then, different bands.