For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Hairball
Contrary to what you said dgiorr, I kind of like the idea of Mick singing "Hey Bulldog" and Lennon singing "Hand of Fate".
Quote
Swayed1967
It's laughable to even imagine John singing songs like 'Miss You' or 'Emotional Rescue.' Or any other famous singer for that matter. Maybe Prince could pull off the two songs I mentioned but he'd be booed off the stage during his rendition of 'Love In Vain.' Whereas I think Jagger could handle most Beatles songs and dare I say improve on them.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Swayed1967
It's laughable to even imagine John singing songs like 'Miss You' or 'Emotional Rescue.' Or any other famous singer for that matter. Maybe Prince could pull off the two songs I mentioned but he'd be booed off the stage during his rendition of 'Love In Vain.' Whereas I think Jagger could handle most Beatles songs and dare I say improve on them.
I can think of quite a few Beatles tunes that Mick would likely suck on actually...
Yesterday
Here Comes the Sun
In My Life
Blackbird
Something
etc... Anything that requires a serious pretty Beatles melody basically. Not Micks forte really. Not to say he hasn't done a few pretty melodies, Moonlight Mile comes to mind.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Swayed1967
It's laughable to even imagine John singing songs like 'Miss You' or 'Emotional Rescue.' Or any other famous singer for that matter. Maybe Prince could pull off the two songs I mentioned but he'd be booed off the stage during his rendition of 'Love In Vain.' Whereas I think Jagger could handle most Beatles songs and dare I say improve on them.
I can think of quite a few Beatles tunes that Mick would likely suck on actually...
Yesterday
Here Comes the Sun
In My Life
Blackbird
Something
etc... Anything that requires a serious pretty Beatles melody basically. Not Micks forte really. Not to say he hasn't done a few pretty melodies, Moonlight Mile comes to mind.
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
NaturalustQuote
Swayed1967
It's laughable to even imagine John singing songs like 'Miss You' or 'Emotional Rescue.' Or any other famous singer for that matter. Maybe Prince could pull off the two songs I mentioned but he'd be booed off the stage during his rendition of 'Love In Vain.' Whereas I think Jagger could handle most Beatles songs and dare I say improve on them.
I can think of quite a few Beatles tunes that Mick would likely suck on actually...
Yesterday
Here Comes the Sun
In My Life
Blackbird
Something
etc... Anything that requires a serious pretty Beatles melody basically. Not Micks forte really. Not to say he hasn't done a few pretty melodies, Moonlight Mile comes to mind.
Most of the songs you mention are not sung by John but I'll concede Mick doing a Beatles medley at karaoke would not impress many Beatles fans. But I'm thinking if the Stones were ever to release an album of Beatles covers Mick would totally rearrange and reinterpret the songs. Mick's version of'I Wanna Be Your Man' blows Ringo's out of the water, doncha think?
Quote
Swayed1967
Whereas I think Jagger could handle most Beatles songs and dare I say improve on them.
Quote
dgiorr
I read and enjoyed the earlier [www.iorr.org] thread, about who, Jagger or Lennon, had the better rock singer voice. I was surprised how much support Lennon got in this, a Stones forum. I don't have a preference; I greatly like them both.
But it made me think how (usually) non-interchangeable Jagger and Lennon are.
I actually could see Jagger doing a credible rendering of "Jealous Guy" and Lennon putting his own great spin on "Angie."
But that's about it.
Think about how awful Jagger would sound singing "Hey Bulldog." Think how Lennon would not be up to "Hand of Fate."
Other than the "Jealous Guy/Angie" thing I mentioned, can anyone think of any songs where you'd have a good version by swapping Jagger and Lennon?
And any theories as to why, at least in my own mind, neither's material "works" for the other? I mean their bands don't totally overlap in style, but it's not like we're comparing, say, Ted Nugent and Greg Lake here.
Quote
stanloveQuote
dgiorr
I read and enjoyed the earlier [www.iorr.org] thread, about who, Jagger or Lennon, had the better rock singer voice. I was surprised how much support Lennon got in this, a Stones forum. I don't have a preference; I greatly like them both.
But it made me think how (usually) non-interchangeable Jagger and Lennon are.
I actually could see Jagger doing a credible rendering of "Jealous Guy" and Lennon putting his own great spin on "Angie."
But that's about it.
Think about how awful Jagger would sound singing "Hey Bulldog." Think how Lennon would not be up to "Hand of Fate."
Other than the "Jealous Guy/Angie" thing I mentioned, can anyone think of any songs where you'd have a good version by swapping Jagger and Lennon?
And any theories as to why, at least in my own mind, neither's material "works" for the other? I mean their bands don't totally overlap in style, but it's not like we're comparing, say, Ted Nugent and Greg Lake here.
I am always amazed when people say that one singer could not singer anohers songs well. Don't you understand if Mick originally sand Bulldog you would be on here right now questioning whether Lennon could sing it ot not, and this goes rght on down the line with every song you can name.
Quote
stanlove
I am always amazed when people say that one singer could not singer anohers songs well. Don't you understand if Mick originally sand Bulldog you would be on here right now questioning whether Lennon could sing it ot not, and this goes rght on down the line with every song you can name.
Quote
Turner68Quote
stanlove
I am always amazed when people say that one singer could not singer anohers songs well. Don't you understand if Mick originally sand Bulldog you would be on here right now questioning whether Lennon could sing it ot not, and this goes rght on down the line with every song you can name.
Mick Jagger is no sand Bulldog.
Quote
Natlanta
let's work / whatever gets you thru the night.
Quote
Turner68Quote
Natlanta
let's work / whatever gets you thru the night.
wow. that's pretty good. i see what you mean.
Quote
dmay
A little change of discussion: Which version of the new Beatles 1+ is the best to get? Read an article on this album in today's NYTimes and I'm wondering.
I too am curious about this. I have been looking for vinyl and only find the original version, but read somewhere they were re-releasing in a deluxe with vinyl. Anyone know anything about this?Quote
HairballQuote
dmay
A little change of discussion: Which version of the new Beatles 1+ is the best to get? Read an article on this album in today's NYTimes and I'm wondering.
I don't own a bluray, so opted for the 1cd/2dvd Beatle +1 Deluxe - the bluray has the same content.
Maybe jumped the gun at $49, but seemed like a reasonable price on a late Friday night.
This link to official site has all the info.for all versions, but prices are probably better via amazon, etc.
Beatles 1
Quote
swiss
Anyway.
It's so interesting to consider the similarities and points of divergence between these two seminal bands...
What would Mick be able to handle, musically and thematically--seems like nothing too lyrical, nothing too emotionally honest, nothing too intellectual (tho he's somewhat intellectual, or at least thoughtful or intellectually curious, as a person), nothing too complex, nothing too "weird" or psychedelic or "silly" (so I'd suggest he wouldn't be able to sing "I Am the Walrus"). Anything the Beatles write that's cynical, Mick could handle.
Whoever suggested "Street Fighting Man" for John--spot on!
Musically, the Paul songs are more up Mick's alley, but the cynicism and sarcasm of John's lyrics are a better fit--so I can't agree with stanlove that any of them could sing anything written by anyone. These are first-tier artists whose songwriting and singing reflects who they are--not just notes or words strung together.
I think it's diverting and interesting, as a Stones' fan, to consider, for example, the fact that Keith could sing and do a great job with "Julia" or "Here Comes the Sun," and Mick just could not. That neither Paul nor John could do justice to "Angie." That John, in the right mood, could have spit poison into "Satisfaction" that would have worked in its own way, but in a way that Mick is too cool and detached to do himself. Even "Brown Sugar" - Paul would not touch it; John is too passionate to sing it right--it requires the strange dispassion of a Mick for it not to be hateful.
This thread--or what it was before being plowed into a 72-page amalgamation of OT: Beatles mess--has been a fun exercise that's served to underscore further for me just how nigh on impossible it is for Mick to be emotionally honest/vulnerable, and that Keith can and does "go there." I'm bummed this thread has been shoved into a Times Square of other posts, but will come back later and finish my take on what Stones songs John (and maybe Paul) would have done well...
I'd love to hear more of other people's thoughts. This is the kind of discussion I would want to be having around a table at a bar, actually.
- swiss
Quote
dgiorrQuote
swiss
Anyway.
It's so interesting to consider the similarities and points of divergence between these two seminal bands...
What would Mick be able to handle, musically and thematically--seems like nothing too lyrical, nothing too emotionally honest, nothing too intellectual (tho he's somewhat intellectual, or at least thoughtful or intellectually curious, as a person), nothing too complex, nothing too "weird" or psychedelic or "silly" (so I'd suggest he wouldn't be able to sing "I Am the Walrus" ). Anything the Beatles write that's cynical, Mick could handle.
Whoever suggested "Street Fighting Man" for John--spot on!
Musically, the Paul songs are more up Mick's alley, but the cynicism and sarcasm of John's lyrics are a better fit--so I can't agree with stanlove that any of them could sing anything written by anyone. These are first-tier artists whose songwriting and singing reflects who they are--not just notes or words strung together.
I think it's diverting and interesting, as a Stones' fan, to consider, for example, the fact that Keith could sing and do a great job with "Julia" or "Here Comes the Sun," and Mick just could not. That neither Paul nor John could do justice to "Angie." That John, in the right mood, could have spit poison into "Satisfaction" that would have worked in its own way, but in a way that Mick is too cool and detached to do himself. Even "Brown Sugar" - Paul would not touch it; John is too passionate to sing it right--it requires the strange dispassion of a Mick for it not to be hateful.
This thread--or what it was before being plowed into a 72-page amalgamation of OT: Beatles mess--has been a fun exercise that's served to underscore further for me just how nigh on impossible it is for Mick to be emotionally honest/vulnerable, and that Keith can and does "go there." I'm bummed this thread has been shoved into a Times Square of other posts, but will come back later and finish my take on what Stones songs John (and maybe Paul) would have done well...
I'd love to hear more of other people's thoughts. This is the kind of discussion I would want to be having around a table at a bar, actually.
- swiss
Several really great responses to my "Trading Places" post (which got moved into this one - why? I'd hoped to keep the topic separate), and swiss's here is just fantastic, putting into words some thoughts I had half-formed but couldn't improve on.
I particularly like the analysis of why Mick wouldn't touch some of John's songs.
"Under My Thumb" and "Run for Your Life" are two misogynist-themed songs from the same timeframe, and I cannot imagine swapping singers on those two, yet can't figure out why. Maybe the malevolent threats in RFYL ("let this be a sermon, I mean everything I said / baby I'm determined that I'd rather see you dead" ) are offset by the jaunty melody, and with the Mick/Stones treatment would sound just too dangerous.
Kind of ironic that, especially at that point in his life, Lennon was much more, in real life, about putting a woman "in her place" than I think the real Jagger ever was, and yet the UMT lyrics wouldn't have sounded "right" coming from John.