This thread would go apeshit on the RARM website.

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.

..... Can't see Mick doin' a bed-in ...

or would the slogan be ???? .... Give the piece another chance



ROCKMAN

Contrary to what you said dgiorr, I kind of like the idea of Mick singing "Hey Bulldog" and Lennon singing "Hand of Fate".

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

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".

I do too!

Here is Part 1 - I'm going to think about Part 2 later.

Mick singing Beatles songs I wouldn't mind hearing -- and a few Keith. It's tricky since the Beatles draw on so many complex harmonies, so the question becomes if MJ were to sing lead on Beatles songs would there be no harmonies, or would Keith sing? hmm, not sure. In any case:

- I Feel Fine (he sings the opening guitar riff in Charlie Is My Darling, so at least at one point he found that part of the song intriguing)
- Taxman
- You've Got to Hide Your Love Away (or maybe Keith)
- Come Together
- Norwegian Wood
- Here Comes the Sun (Keith, not Mick)
- Helter Skelter
- Day Tripper
- Rain
- In My Life (KR, but he might start crying before he got too far in)
- Girl (it's bitter enough for Mick, but too melodic)
- I'm So Tired (Keith)
- And Your Bird Can Sing (total fantasy - Mick would never sing this - but how cool to hear young Mick and young Keith singing this)
- Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey - Mick would never ever sing this - but I would love to hear him just tear completely loose and wail it
- Julia (Keith - like John, so loved his mum)
- I've Got a Feeling -- NEVER -- Two of Us -- NEVER

------------------

That was fun (tho not comprehensive). I look forward to Part 2 -- John singing Stones' songs.

- swiss

Nice list Swiss - this could go one for awhile with amazing results!

Mick - Yer Blues.
John - Street Fighting Man.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

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
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
Naturalust

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.

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.

I think Mick could pull off Yesterday...

"I hope you didn't record any of this""No I didn't"

Quote
Naturalust

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.

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

Quote
Naturalust

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.

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?

Yes I agree about IWBYM. When thinking about the question I inadvertently started thinking all Beatles tunes instead of just Lennon sung ones. I can certainly imagine him strutting his stuff and ripping a pretty good version of I Am The Walrus! Goo Goo Ga Joob!

I'd argue their voices are quite interchangeable just by the fact that Lennon and Jagger (successfully) sang some of the same Chuck Berry songs:

1) CAROL
2) MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
3) SWEET LITTLE SIXTEEN

to name a few.

we know that ringo and mick can trade places!
"i wanna be your man"

indeed, i think when it comes to pure vocal ability, ringo is the most comparable to mick. the stones don't have a singer in the league of mccartney or lennon, and probably not george either.

Quote
Swayed1967
Whereas I think Jagger could handle most Beatles songs and dare I say improve on them.

I was waiting for the rim shot...where is the rim shot?!?!

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.

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

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.

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.

"The Greatest Love Of All" - yeah, I can hear Mick doing this.

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.

Mick Jagger is no sand Bulldog.

Quote
Turner68

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.

Mick Jagger is no sand Bulldog.

He's also no John F. Kennedy

let's work / whatever gets you thru the night.

Quote
Natlanta
let's work / whatever gets you thru the night.

wow. that's pretty good. i see what you mean.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Natlanta
let's work / whatever gets you thru the night.

wow. that's pretty good. i see what you mean.

hard woman/imagine

The only area where Lennon and Jagger could both sing comfortably is that 50's rock and roll stuff (Chuck Berry, Larry Williams, Elvis, Buddy Holly), and Motown music. Lennon would be completely out of his element with Robert Johnson, Slim Harpo etc. and we've all seen Mick and Keith singing "Eight Days a Week" and "I've just Seen a Face". It's hilarious because that tuneful pop music is so out of character for them and they know it. I love that clip because Charlie is looking at them, like "WTF?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-08 22:35 by drbryant.

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.

What the f u ck? We are talking about Mick Jagger's vocal abilities on Beatles songs -- and that is construed as "other Beatles stuff"?

Someone must have reported this...

If this were a discussion about Mick's ability to sing Led Zeppelin songs -- and Robert Plant's ability to sing Stones' songs, would this thread have been shoved into an existing thread about Led Zeppelin?

As they used to say: for the luvva Pete...

- swiss



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-09 11:18 by swiss.

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 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

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

woman / short and curlies

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-09 11:18 by swiss.

Quote
Hairball

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 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

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
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.

Quote
dgiorr

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

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.

OK...I am thinking (as said just above) that John's lyrics and temperament are "hotter," more fiery/passionate, than Mick's. There's a ubiquitous emotional distance/dispassion to Mick's lyrics (and delivery). Mick can be almost coldly sociopathic in some songs, and I can't think of one song where he's out of control of his emotions--or admitting to it--his vulnerability being a crux or main point of the song (think, for contrast, John in "Mother" ). John can move himself to enraged unhinged un-reason. Dignity, and not losing face, is important to Mick (i.e., or his songwriting persona). He can sing about squashing someone like a bug, dispassionately. John wouldn't and couldn't. The closest I can think of that John comes to "remove" is--maybe--in Girl, when he sings "When you say she's looking good/she acts as if it's understood/she's cool." But still, there's an edge--he's resentful, but grudgingly impressed.

Mick can be bitchy, coldly cutting, and mean. John not so much. Even "Sexy Sadie"--starts out trying to more or less sort of objectively narrate this person's sins and ills foisted on others--but soon moves to John vitriol "Sexy Sadie you'll get yours yet/However big you think you are!" And in general, John is more of pissed-off, restless, and heading toward primal scream temperament cuz it FEELS good to vent spleen and let loose (think, even, of his singing on "Rock and Roll Music" ). In sharp chilling contrast--Mick singing "Now you’ve got your diamonds-and you will have some others/but you’d better watch your step, girl/or start living with your mother.”


He's so cold...like an ice cream cone.

- swiss



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-09 11:25 by swiss.