Tend to agree with the Robert Christgau review of LYL:

"The Rolling Stones: Love You Live [Rolling Stones, 1977]
As a Stones loyalist, I am distressed to report that this documents the Stones' suspected deterioration as a live band, a deterioration epitomized by the accelerating affectation of Mick's vocals. Once his slurs teased, made jokes, held out double meanings; now his refusal to pronounce final dentals--the "good" and "should" of "Brown Sugar," for example--convey bored, arrogant laziness, as if he can't be bothered hoisting his tongue to the roof of his mouth. His "oo-oo-oo"s and "awri-i"s are self-parody without humor. This is clearly a professional entertainer doing a job that just doesn't get him off the way it once did, a job that gets harder every time out. C+"

Agree about Micks attitude that tour, but, I prefer that style to the clean opera rock of today. Anytime. 72 was perfect and I dont care for the 81-82 singing but 75-76 sometimes shows him at his best actually. IYCRM, Hot stuff, @#$%&, SFTD etc.

The Menace of Mayfair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I noticed nothing but the sheer visual/audial
> 'weight' of the '75 Seattle show. It's impossible
> to describe to anybody who didn't see them before
> '75 what the experience was like.
>
> I liken it to Concorde taking off at London
> Heathrow. Everything and everybody stops.
> Period; they STOP! Nothing sounds like Concorde
> and even the jaded air traveller (like me!) stops
> for a moment and their thought process is halted.
>
> Concorde's take off had the 'presence' of
> thundering, apocalyptic oblivion. Such as did the
> 1975 Tour Of the Americas.
>
> I did not notice Mick's voice, except that it was
> like nothing I'd ever heard on record. He was in
> absolute control, along with Keith. Nothing like
> it before or since has thoroughly penetrated me,
> viscerally and conciously.
>
>


And I agree a 100%, same feeling here. This is the tour that I would like to live.

I actually like all of Jagger's periods. '75/'76 sounded messy but very cool, with all the growling and all.

Edward Twining Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there is a black funk influence in Mick's
> vocals in 1975 that some fans dislike - i find it
> much preferable to his later more conventional
> singing.
> I do think the Stones were less convincing
> generally though on this tour.


Could be that. He's very black and there is the whole band is. Funk, dance and rock, and some heavy blues. Ollie and Billy might have added visually to the band of gypsies thing.

my thinking is that all of Mick's running around distracts from his singing these days. It is not really that he is out of breath because he obviously is very fit. But I think his focus on his visual impact takes his concentration away from making his vocals the best. No doubt that he is protecting his voice too but I think the main part is that he is not focused on the best possible vocals. His voice is very clear and strong but lacks some of the emotion and nuance that we have seen before and really appreciate.
I think the focus on the visual started with the '81 stadium tour. The colorful outfits and the running around was to keep the audience into it when they were so far away. Now with the jumbo screens everyone can see him pretty clearly. Some moving around is welcomed of course but I think staying more middle stage and singing would enable him to do better vocals without straining his voice unnecessarily. I would think that the No Security tour would have better vocals for this reason but have not listened to the boots. What do you think?

I'm glad someone brought this up. While I love the '75 and '76 tours, Micks vocal delivery does seem to change a bit each tour and those years it was sloppy, drunk and/or drugged out, and slurred.

He would deliver the lines in a almost lazy fashion, hitting the sounds and melody but not too worried about finishing the last word or even saying it correctly. And shouting...barking....not really carrying a tune, like he would have done in say, '69 or even '72.

Of course now, he articulates too much, trying too hard to pronounce every word properly. I say the best Jagger vocal would be a little sloppyness of the mid 70's with a little consentration from today.

Yeah but listen to the spontanous IFYRM from Buffalo (?), the hotter than hell boot.

livewithme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> my thinking is that all of Mick's running around
> distracts from his singing these days. It is not
> really that he is out of breath because he
> obviously is very fit. But I think his focus on
> his visual impact takes his concentration away
> from making his vocals the best. No doubt that he
> is protecting his voice too but I think the main
> part is that he is not focused on the best
> possible vocals. His voice is very clear and
> strong but lacks some of the emotion and nuance
> that we have seen before and really appreciate.
> I think the focus on the visual started with the
> '81 stadium tour. The colorful outfits and the
> running around was to keep the audience into it
> when they were so far away. Now with the jumbo
> screens everyone can see him pretty clearly. Some
> moving around is welcomed of course but I think
> staying more middle stage and singing would enable
> him to do better vocals without straining his
> voice unnecessarily. I would think that the No
> Security tour would have better vocals for this
> reason but have not listened to the boots. What
> do you think?

Well..on some No Security shows he lost all of his power..almost no vocals at all...Sacramento..or was he sick?

For goddsake.......HE'S 60 SOMETHING YEARS OLD!!
Go ask your grandpa to belt out JJFlash for 4o years and see what you get.

Thank God Mick got healthy and took care of his voice.....if he hadn't we wouldn't
have had the past 20 years of Jagger/Stones music.

Every time I listen to their music and think of their age...it just amazes me.
For anyone who criticized Keith's playing (or lack of playing) at the freezing Chicago show last week......take a look at those arthritic fingers of his...and remember that he's 60 something years old. His hands look like my dead Polish grandmother's hands. (She mad great chicken soup)

It's a frickin' miracle that they are still relevant...and still entertaining all of us at high level in 2006! They could be making chicken soup. Enjoy the music!
ENjoy the LEGENDS!!

While I like the '75/'76 tours I do find it hard to listen to them sometimes on account of Jagger's vocals......I don't care for the slurring and such......and even later tours such as '78 and '81 when he just breathlessly tosses out the words to immortal songs like "Brown Sugar" and "Jack Flash" tends to annoy me. I think in those days, the focus was on "working the crowd" and giving them a great visual show instead of the music......I like the Stones the best in '69 thru '73 but even on the '73 European tour, you can hear the precursor of Jagger's '75 vocal style....it just wasn't as exaggerated in Europe in '73.

Thats not true...at one point in NY he says to Keith play quietly...do you remember.

Tumblin_Dice_07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I like the '75/'76 tours I do find it hard
> to listen to them sometimes on account of Jagger's
> vocals......I don't care for the slurring and
> such......and even later tours such as '78 and '81
> when he just breathlessly tosses out the words to
> immortal songs like "Brown Sugar" and "Jack Flash"
> tends to annoy me. I think in those days, the
> focus was on "working the crowd" and giving them a
> great visual show instead of the music......I like
> the Stones the best in '69 thru '73 but even on
> the '73 European tour, you can hear the precursor
> of Jagger's '75 vocal style....it just wasn't as
> exaggerated in Europe in '73.

1978 vocals were great hi energy stuff, particularly on the Some Girls material. 1981 was just a pale shadow of that, most the time.
I totally agree about the Europe 1973 thing you wrote, though!

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For goddsake.......HE'S 60 SOMETHING YEARS OLD!!
> Go ask your grandpa to belt out JJFlash for 4o
> years and see what you get.

The age thing has got nothing to do with the objective perception. It's just an explaination for the (possible) decline. It has nothing to do with the objective, or subjectibe, quality as such.

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For goddsake.......HE'S 60 SOMETHING YEARS OLD!!
> Go ask your grandpa to belt out JJFlash for 4o
> years and see what you get.
>
> Thank God Mick got healthy and took care of his
> voice.....if he hadn't we wouldn't
> have had the past 20 years of Jagger/Stones music.
>
>
> Every time I listen to their music and think of
> their age...it just amazes me.
> For anyone who criticized Keith's playing (or lack
> of playing) at the freezing Chicago show last
> week......take a look at those arthritic fingers
> of his...and remember that he's 60 something years
> old. His hands look like my dead Polish
> grandmother's hands. (She mad great chicken
> soup)
>
> It's a frickin' miracle that they are still
> relevant...and still entertaining all of us at
> high level in 2006! They could be making chicken
> soup. Enjoy the music!
> ENjoy the LEGENDS!!

They said that 30 years ago..If they would tour like they used to..they could give so much more!!But you woulnt be satisfied with 1 /2 hour now would you!! Thats the point!

Re: Anderson

Anderson wrote:

The age thing has got nothing to do with the objective perception. It's just an explaination for the (possible) decline. It has nothing to do with the objective, or subjectibe, quality as such.

********************************

Just looking for clarification.

When comparing Mick's vocal strength from era to era...you don't think age and health is a factor? Just trying to understand your post.

I was addressing those who seemed to be overly critical.....seemingly forgeting that unlike most rockers that wave bye-bye to their careers at the age of 30...Mick and the Stones have been very strong in their 40s, 50s and SIXTIES! Unbelievable.

If you strictly want to compare Mick's vocals from one era to another....that's also somewhat unfair because we are hearing the sound engineer's interpretation.
Everything is subjective.

I think you are over reacting. I don't think people are criticizing Mick here at all. This seems to be devoted fans just observing the differences over the years.
I was blown away by the strength of his voice the last time I saw them. But that doesn't mean it was his best ever vocal performance.

Fair enough. I agree that there are differences from one tour to the next.....just seemed weird that some were dissatisfied that his vocals had gotten "thinner". My point: Mick is over 60 yrs of age and thanks to his conversion to health in the '80s he's still at the top.

Jagger's vocal prime = '66 through '72

Yeah I agree. I don't know what he means by thinner. Less range I could see but thinner seems to me to say that his voice is less strong which definitely is not the case.

.....I miss the growl....the sloppiness.....the cockiness of the 75/76 version of Jagger.........78 was pretty close....but he gets major props for the present day version too......his performances are awfully impressive

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fair enough. I agree that there are differences
> from one tour to the next.....just seemed weird
> that some were dissatisfied that his vocals had
> gotten "thinner". My point: Mick is over 60 yrs
> of age and thanks to his conversion to health in
> the '80s he's still at the top.

Yeah great but the thread is about his voice and how he used it then compared to now. He's older but that doesnt have to be a problem, the point is how you sing and use your voice. I think he sings too much like a pro today, I'd love to hear him do spontanous stuff, he has done it on records, listen to Wandering spirit. Or newer material.

rooster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you look at the videos you noticed that Jagger
> began to move a lot more on stage during the 75
> tour..if you compare.

Yes notice that.

I think that 75 was the first tour he had a wireless Mic. so that allowed him to run around and sing and chew gum ( which he did a lot of in 81) at the same time.

Anderson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tumblin_Dice_07 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > While I like the '75/'76 tours I do find it
> hard
> > to listen to them sometimes on account of
> Jagger's
> > vocals......I don't care for the slurring and
> > such......and even later tours such as '78 and
> '81
> > when he just breathlessly tosses out the words
> to
> > immortal songs like "Brown Sugar" and "Jack
> Flash"
> > tends to annoy me. I think in those days, the
> > focus was on "working the crowd" and giving them
> a
> > great visual show instead of the music......I
> like
> > the Stones the best in '69 thru '73 but even
> on
> > the '73 European tour, you can hear the
> precursor
> > of Jagger's '75 vocal style....it just wasn't
> as
> > exaggerated in Europe in '73.
>
> 1978 vocals were great hi energy stuff,
> particularly on the Some Girls material. 1981 was
> just a pale shadow of that, most the time.
> I totally agree about the Europe 1973 thing you
> wrote, though!


I agree with Tumblin & Anderson...

And I'll add- Mick is at the top of his game right now. Which considering his age is really beyond belief. The kind of shape he's in for 63 puts him in a class all by himself.

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

too much coke, booze, pills, powders and traveling all over the place with groupies on your tail.. and more drugs. you can almost hear the effects of the substances in Micks voice. He was almost a mess at some shows. but yet brilliant in its owns way.

the gum chewing...I thought that was weird. What about sounding really drunk? Was he, sometimes?

I have noticed in the 70's Mick added an arbitrary "h" after an "s", i.e. "You heard about the Boshton...."

He did that frequently back then...
Not sure if was the booze, drugs, or just a habit back then but he doesn't do that anymore.

That "Boshton" crap was all aprt of his "Black" accent ' It was "black" plus Jaggerizations; so he came up with "Baushten". Haha
I want to say that in 75/76 the song "If you can't rock me" is IMO the prime example of his bad singing style. If there was onbe song that suffered it was IYCRM. "..bandzonstageissunnadozeniii...oh yeah!...rummertinkaeesadynomit ..OHYEAH!...lerathernlace,,hurtlikehell...(maybe) hurtlikhell (again)..." he never rememebered any of the words.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: Anderson
>
> Anderson wrote:
>
> The age thing has got nothing to do with the
> objective perception. It's just an explaination
> for the (possible) decline. It has nothing to do
> with the objective, or subjectibe, quality as
> such.
>
> ********************************
>
> Just looking for clarification.
>
> When comparing Mick's vocal strength from era to
> era...you don't think age and health is a factor?
> Just trying to understand your post.

Yes, I think age and health is a factor, that's exactly what I mean. So Mick singing well in his sixties is more impressive than if he sang the same way in his thirties. No doubt! The thing is, I think he sang better in his thirties than he does now. The age thing might explain why, but doesn't make the old voice ring better to my ears than the younger one for that reason. The age ting has nothing to do with what I hear, and doesn't change it. That's what I meant.

> I was addressing those who seemed to be overly
> critical.....seemingly forgeting that unlike most
> rockers that wave bye-bye to their careers at the
> age of 30...Mick and the Stones have been very
> strong in their 40s, 50s and SIXTIES!
> Unbelievable.

Yes indeed, and I am impressed! Just doesn't change the fact that his (slightly) decling voice sounded better before. Imo.

> If you strictly want to compare Mick's vocals from
> one era to another....that's also somewhat unfair
> because we are hearing the sound engineer's
> interpretation.
> Everything is subjective.

Sure, but only to a certain extend! And a sound engineer cannot change the feeling and singing techique. Besides, this is (mostly) a thread about live vocals, right? And as I wrote earlier, Mick's live singing today is alot flatter in concert than on record, even recent ones, so he clearly his holding back a bit; quite a bit vocally on stage. It was rather the opposite in the sixties and seveties. The sound engineer has got nothing to do with the obervation of this! A scream or growl sounds like a scream through any mic or sound processing.

Mick's vocal peak both live and in the studio was in '72. Since then, he's never matched that greatness. He's technically a better singer today than he's probably ever been - and when I say technically I'm talking in terms of proper technique and breathing, etc... - but his voice has lost much of its edge. He can still some close to it though - and has in recent years. The reason he doesn't go all out on stage anymore is because he's trying to save his voice to get through the tour. He still sounds good for his age, but it's true...he does sing often sing flat these days and just plain plays it too safe sometimes.