Quote
RomanCandle
imo Jagger is a bad singer. All the best rock vocalists (e.g. the underrated Billy Idol) know that he can't sing. actually he's not that bad when he sounds ironic or cynical but when he tries to sing ballads he's terrible!!!! he has a hangdog voice!!!! When he tries to show emotions does he really think he's in a Racine's tragedy?

That's why my favourite Stones album is Beggars Banquet and not Sticky Fingers

I'm not saying he's not talented because he was a great lyricist, and he's charismatic, but yes, as a singer he's terrible. his voice was the worst part of the RS music... nowadays his voice save the RS shows because Keith richards is even worse...

He's OK as a pop singer, boring as a blues singer. Actually he's not the only rock singer who sounds bad and I love his falsetto on Fool To Cry.

I'm going to disagree with you on most of this, but will note that Michael Jackson stated he couldn't believe how bad Mick was a singer, after they did their "State Of Shock" duet.

I guess you'd probably say that Bob Dylan is a bad vocalist as well, although I think Rolling Stone rated him as one of the top singers of all time.

They may not be viewed as 'traditionally' great vocalists, like an opera singer say, but they sing their own music better than anyone else.

Quote
Rockman
He's OK as a pop singer, boring as a blues singer. Actually he's not the only rock singer who sounds bad and I love his falsetto on Fool To Cry.

YEAH when ya think about it they should give
Mick the boot and bring Chuck in as the lead singer ..........

Pretty funny, Rockman...

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
moonlightaffair

Quote
71Tele

Winter, Moonlight Mile, and Sway are real. Memory Motel is where he started to parody himself on ballads, imo, and he has done so ever since.

Agree

Yeah Tele, you are right. Just listened to Memory Motel again and sure enough Mick's vocals are definitely forced and exaggerated. Hard to describe but parody of himself is about as good of a description as I've heard.

I wonder what song/sound he is trying to replicate? I get the feeling he has listened to a whole lot of himself. He must have decided that was the sound that he likes and exemplifies his singing because he sure has repeated it alot in the years since. He needs to get out of his head and back into his heart like he obviously was with Sway. Good thing he is such a good showman and dancer...

peace

I think at a certain point he felt embarrassed or unwilling to reveal real emotions, so he reverted to this very affected kind of singing on ballads. A real shame in my view. Just listen to Sway or Let It Loose. Then listen to something like Following The River. I don't think he has done a convincing ballad since Til The Next Goodbye or even the ones on GHS. It's more "Here I am singing a ballad (eye roll)".

Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

You're too easy DP. I get what you're saying though. It seems to work when he does country ballads. His self described "tongue in cheek" approach.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

You're too easy DP. I get what you're saying though. It seems to work when he does country ballads. His self described "tongue in cheek" approach.

peace

I'm too much of a fan, perhaps

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

I respectfully disagree. Winter is impassioned and convincing. TWFNO - nice as it is - isn't the same quality of song, but he still sells it I think. I never could take Memory Motel seriously. That performance is rescued by Keith's vocal bit. It doesn't help that the cheeseball Fool To Cry is on the same record. I miss the Mick Jagger who sang Sway, Let It Loose, and Loving Cup. Where did that guy go?

This is ridiculous. Jagger is one of the two signature sounds of the Stones. That guy is lost.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

I agree with that view, more or less.

Besides, one could argue that the seemingly "sincere", earlier Mick Jagger is as much a role or even more. Maybe even, that earlier Mick Jagger, who is missed by some or many, is what is "larger than life", whereas the later many-layered, nuanced and "contrived" Mick Jagger may be more or at least as much the real person.

Alternatively, the development may be seen as involving a transformation from the more youthful Mick to the mature Jagger.

As to the song, which I have not commented on: Simply, "Sway" is great enough to follow after "Brown Sugar" and precede "Wild Horses" and naturally belong there on the masterful STICKY FINGERS. I never see any need to rank between the songs of the album in their context.

Quote
Witness

Alternatively, the development may be seen as involving a transformation from the more youthful Mick to the mature Jagger.

Or the stoned Jagger to the sober Jagger..

peace

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

I agree with that view, more or less.

Besides, one could argue that the seemingly "sincere", earlier Mick Jagger is as much a role or even more. Maybe even, that earlier Mick Jagger, who is missed by some or many, is what is "larger than life", whereas the later many-layered, nuanced and "contrived" Mick Jagger may be more or at least as much the real person.

Alternatively, the development may be seen as involving a transformation from the more youthful Mick to the mature Jagger.

I don't think "maturity" has got anything to do with it. It's a simple case of art vs. artifice. Writing something from an emotional place gets you a different result than contriving to write a ballad. Same for the performance part. To my ears, Jagger's emoting on songs like Sway and Winter sound real and impassioned, while on later ballads (think Indian Girl) he either sounds contrived or delivers the lyric almost tongue in cheek, as if he's winking to us and saying "this isn't serious". In Winter, Sway, Let It Loose et al, I never doubt the emotional sincerity of the lyrics or performance. When inspiration has left you, what remains is craft.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-14 08:02 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

I agree with that view, more or less.

Besides, one could argue that the seemingly "sincere", earlier Mick Jagger is as much a role or even more. Maybe even, that earlier Mick Jagger, who is missed by some or many, is what is "larger than life", whereas the later many-layered, nuanced and "contrived" Mick Jagger may be more or at least as much the real person.

Alternatively, the development may be seen as involving a transformation from the more youthful Mick to the mature Jagger.

I don't think "maturity" has got anything to do with it. It's a simple case of art vs. artifice. Writing something from an emotional place gets you a different result than contriving to write a ballad. Same for the performance part. To my ears, Jagger's emoting on songs like Sway and Winter sound real and impassioned, while on later ballads (think Indian Girl) he either sounds contrived or delivers the lyric almost tongue in cheek, as if he's winking to us and saying "this isn't serious". In Winter, Sway, Let It Loose et al, I never doubt the emotional sincerity of the lyrics or performance. When inspiration has left you, what remains is craft.

Really well said! This could/should be it's own thread, it's certainly very interesting to me.

Rock and roll does have a frivolous nature to it. It's easy for a young man to indulge in such things and believe in it's importance. But it's been a long time since any one Jagger/Richards song had the importance of say,Gimme Shelter in it's day and Mick has become such a cultured businessman. Do the things in life that really move and inspire Mick these days equate to good songwriting subjects?

Should we expect people's ability to deliver emotionally sincere songs to last a lifetime? Does the process of crafting so many songs preclude the ability to instill emotion in all of them?

One thing that's obvious to most people is whether the performance is genuine in it's emotion and sincerity. I think Mick distracts us somewhat with his showmanship and dancing during concerts but on records he can't do that and it's pretty obvious to me that the passion of old is missing. Maybe why the last many records haven't really moved me (and why the set lists are all 30+ year old songs).

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

I agree with that view, more or less.

Besides, one could argue that the seemingly "sincere", earlier Mick Jagger is as much a role or even more. Maybe even, that earlier Mick Jagger, who is missed by some or many, is what is "larger than life", whereas the later many-layered, nuanced and "contrived" Mick Jagger may be more or at least as much the real person.

Alternatively, the development may be seen as involving a transformation from the more youthful Mick to the mature Jagger.

I don't think "maturity" has got anything to do with it. It's a simple case of art vs. artifice. Writing something from an emotional place gets you a different result than contriving to write a ballad. Same for the performance part. To my ears, Jagger's emoting on songs like Sway and Winter sound real and impassioned, while on later ballads (think Indian Girl) he either sounds contrived or delivers the lyric almost tongue in cheek, as if he's winking to us and saying "this isn't serious". In Winter, Sway, Let It Loose et al, I never doubt the emotional sincerity of the lyrics or performance. When inspiration has left you, what remains is craft.

Really well said! This could/should be it's own thread, it's certainly very interesting to me.

Rock and roll does have a frivolous nature to it. It's easy for a young man to indulge in such things and believe in it's importance. But it's been a long time since any one Jagger/Richards song had the importance of say,Gimme Shelter in it's day and Mick has become such a cultured businessman. Do the things in life that really move and inspire Mick these days equate to good songwriting subjects?

Should we expect people's ability to deliver emotionally sincere songs to last a lifetime? Does the process of crafting so many songs preclude the ability to instill emotion in all of them?

One thing that's obvious to most people is whether the performance is genuine in it's emotion and sincerity. I think Mick distracts us somewhat with his showmanship and dancing during concerts but on records he can't do that and it's pretty obvious to me that the passion of old is missing. Maybe why the last many records haven't really moved me (and why the set lists are all 30+ year old songs).

peace

Only time for a short answer:

All motives are not simple and one-dimensional. One tends to arrive at less simple motives at a later age.

Besides, after some generations of irony a threat to a rock band would be to be found guilty of banal sentimentality. Especially for a band elder than many of its potential fans. That may have a share,too.

All the same, I consider "Indian Girl" to be serious and sincere and that the "contrived" aspect is due to Mick Jagger daring to balance on the verge of sentimentality, something I find that he succeeds in avoiding to be reduced to.

And has not the following lyrics ("Blinded by Rainbows" ) any importance?

Did you ever feel the pain
That he felt upon the cross
Did you ever feel the knife
Tearing flesh that's oh so soft

Did you ever touch the night
Did you ever count the cost
Do you hide away the fear
Put down paradise as lost

Yeah you're blinded by rainbows
Watching the wind blow
Blinded by rainbows
Do you dream at night
Do you sleep at night
I doubt it

Did you ever feel the blast
As the semtex bomb goes off
Do you ever hear the screams
As the limbs are all torn off
Did you ever kiss the child
Who just saw his father shot
Do you ever she'd a tear
As the war drags on and on

Do you ever touch the night
Or is it just another job
Do you feel the final hours
Put down paradise as lost

Yeah you're blinded by rainbows
And faces in windows
Blinded by rainbows
Do you dream at night
Do you sleep at night
I doubt it

Do you ever fear the night
Could it be the war is lost
Do you fear the final hour
Do you kneel before the cross

Youre blinded by rainbows
And watching the wind blow
Blinded by rainbows
Do you dream at night
Do you scream at night
Do you smell of fear
Is your conscience clear
Are you caked in sweat

Are your clothes all wet
Do you see the light
Is the end in sight
See the face of christ
Enter paradise
I doubt it

Last edit: correction of a misprint.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-14 10:08 by Witness.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

I respectfully disagree. Winter is impassioned and convincing. TWFNO - nice as it is - isn't the same quality of song, but he still sells it I think. I never could take Memory Motel seriously. That performance is rescued by Keith's vocal bit. It doesn't help that the cheeseball Fool To Cry is on the same record. I miss the Mick Jagger who sang Sway, Let It Loose, and Loving Cup. Where did that guy go?

I usually agree with what you wrote about art and artifice.

However, there are exceptions - and Mick certainly is the singer who can limbo under the bar with his personas, imo.

Mick's singing on Winter and TWFNO has that jaded, self-important vibe, like we'd find on many 70s recordings, imo. Like I said, not necessarily a bad thing.

Let It Loose, Sway, Beast Of Burden and Angie has that sincerity and despair to them, albeit for different reasons and in different ways. Great singing indeed, but the "artifice-Mick" also has his good sides, imo (Miss You, Whip etc.)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Winter and TWFNO are a bit camp as well, the same way Memory Motel is, imo.

It's just Mick playing his "larger than life"-role. Nothing wrong with that. He's taking on a persona like no one else can. I like it. It's a new dimension to the music. If you're able to flow with it, it enhances the song in a weird way.

I respectfully disagree. Winter is impassioned and convincing. TWFNO - nice as it is - isn't the same quality of song, but he still sells it I think. I never could take Memory Motel seriously. That performance is rescued by Keith's vocal bit. It doesn't help that the cheeseball Fool To Cry is on the same record. I miss the Mick Jagger who sang Sway, Let It Loose, and Loving Cup. Where did that guy go?

I usually agree with what you wrote about art and artifice.

However, there are exceptions - and Mick certainly is the singer who can limbo under the bar with his personas, imo.

Mick's singing on Winter and TWFNO has that jaded, self-important vibe, like we'd find on many 70s recordings, imo. Like I said, not necessarily a bad thing.

Let It Loose, Sway, Beast Of Burden and Angie has that sincerity and despair to them, albeit for different reasons and in different ways. Great singing indeed, but the "artifice-Mick" also has his good sides, imo (Miss You, Whip etc.)

Yeah, I would go with that, mostly. I was thinking strictly of ballads. best is a great vocal, of course, and when Mick hams it up (as on Miss You) it can be great. But the difference between Sway and Memory Motel or Indian Girl in terms of passion and sincerity is light years (again, talking ballads here).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-15 05:50 by 71Tele.

Re: Mick's vocals. Agree with Tele71, sway, loose, Moonlight (Moonlight in particular) are something else (I would definitely include, to a certain extent also Horses and Angie live. Maybe even Cocksuker blues, but that's me). They have that something that was not there before (Fence or Fire) and after.

I say its all in the age of the singer.

In the early days Mick was 100% committed only on cover numbers (Strong My love is). On his own songs, he had his macho reputation to defend.

Later, coke, marriages, kids, broken hearts swept away the purity, the innocence. It happened to all of us. We start growing thick skin. We get cynical. We don't allow ourselves to pour out our feelings any more.

The most sincere Jagger post Loose - on a RS published recording - can be found on Tattoo You side 2. No moonlight mile there, but, thank god, no Anyway You Look at It either!

C

Quote
treaclefingers
I guess you'd probably say that Bob Dylan is a bad vocalist as well, although I think Rolling Stone rated him as one of the top singers of all time..

NOOOOOO!
Bob dylan is GREAT
(but imo elvis, Marc bolan and Billy Idol are better... there s no god but Elvis and billy Idol is his prophet)

elvis voice is funny, melancholic and sexy at the same time... all rock singers should sound like Elvis!!!! actually I don't know any rock singer whose voice is as funny, melancholic and sexy except Marc Bolan, Prince, Peter Perrett and Billy Idol! Period. please ask bv to hire rock history teachers



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-14 23:31 by RomanCandle.

Quote
RomanCandle
all rock singers should sound like Elvis!!!! actually I don't know any rock singer whose voice is as funny, melancholic and sexy except Marc Bolan, Prince, Peter Perrett and Billy Idol! Period. please ask bv to hire rock history teachers

And start them out by tutoring you. If Rock n Roll singing was defined by funny, melancholic and sexy most of us would have lost interest long ago.

peace

Quote
Rockman
He's OK as a pop singer, boring as a blues singer. Actually he's not the only rock singer who sounds bad and I love his falsetto on Fool To Cry.

YEAH when ya think about it they should give
Mick the boot and bring Chuck in as the lead singer ..........

ACTUALLY Sea Level [en.wikipedia.org] was great group. I had their first album on cassette that is long gone unfortunately. But Chuck and Jaimo and accomplices ROCKED!!! and it was jazzy too.

Chuckie back in the day as the singer w microphone hanging there...lest we forget






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-14 23:52 by triceratops.

Coked up or not Jagger's vocals on the '73 Oz/NZ tour are the greatest in rock history. One may not like his voice or his vocal delivery but to say he can't sing is absurd.
I agree he went all weird arse on ballads from MM but his delivery on "Angie" is flawless and I think Sticky Fingers and Exile mark him as one of the greatest singers on record ever. Not just because the albums are imo the two greatest in music history but because he sings a wide variety of styles and masters them all over these six sides.
There's a long, long career here to put under the microscope of singing and he has regularly tried (and succeeded imo) to mix things up with his vocal delivery over half a century (on record at least). I think it's part of his genius. He could stick to what's safe (ala set lists...) but has regularly tried new approaches to singing and even though not all have succeeded his creative drive keeps it fresh.
Look at the two vocal lines on "Spider and fly" for e.g. - 1965 he's very "couldn't give a toss" and 1995 he's tempered and cautious (purposefully sounding so I mean) in his delivery and both work wonderfully imo.
Babbling now but like any of us Jagger has his off moments. Overall I'd never have anyone else sing for the Stones (well Keith maybe on occasion).

It is interesting to look at it that way, how he sings ballads. The dude that is awful bad on Streets Of Love sang Wild Horses?

Thank Jagger for TATTOO YOU... Tops is supreme. It's a huge gap from Winter to Tops etc, although I get the feeling that the two from BLACK AND BLUE were his way of doing something different. Almost Hear You Sigh, Out Of Tears and Laugh, I Nearly Died are great post-TATTOO YOU ballads. Everything else has been rote at best.

Quote
triceratops

Quote
Rockman
He's OK as a pop singer, boring as a blues singer. Actually he's not the only rock singer who sounds bad and I love his falsetto on Fool To Cry.

YEAH when ya think about it they should give
Mick the boot and bring Chuck in as the lead singer ..........

ACTUALLY Sea Level [en.wikipedia.org] was great group. I had their first album on cassette that is long gone unfortunately. But Chuck and Jaimo and accomplices ROCKED!!! and it was jazzy too.

Chuckie back in the day as the singer w microphone hanging there...lest we forget

Can open, worms scurrying out...

Quote
71Tele

Quote
triceratops

Quote
Rockman
He's OK as a pop singer, boring as a blues singer. Actually he's not the only rock singer who sounds bad and I love his falsetto on Fool To Cry.

YEAH when ya think about it they should give
Mick the boot and bring Chuck in as the lead singer ..........

ACTUALLY Sea Level [en.wikipedia.org] was great group. I had their first album on cassette that is long gone unfortunately. But Chuck and Jaimo and accomplices ROCKED!!! and it was jazzy too.

Chuckie back in the day as the singer w microphone hanging there...lest we forget

Can open, worms scurrying out...

Worms on the hook, line in the water, fish are jumpin', Chuck's on the radio.

peace

One of my top five Stones songs

Quote
RomanCandle
imo Jagger is a bad singer. All the best rock vocalists (e.g. the underrated Billy Idol) know that he can't sing. ... but yes, as a singer he's terrible. ...

Your statements are really ignorant. Not just in regards to Mick Jagger, but in rock history in general. That person that can't sing may have his lesser moments, often criticized for his exaggerated cockney accent, but still, he is the singer of songs like Paint It Black, Symphony for the Devil, Brown Sugar, Sway & Moonlight Mile (as i mentioned before), Winter, Start Me Up ... it goes on & on.

There are countless Stones songs that have been greatly enhanced by Mick's vocals, there's no denying that. He is easily in the top 5 of most recognizable voices in rock history.

And I am not talking about own opinions or preferences, this is a fact of Rock 'n Roll. Even non-Stones fans would have to agree with this. To say Mick is a bad singer is equivalent to saying John Lennon is a bad singer (or as another said, Dylan).

Jagger, Lennon, and Dylan are all (or were) great singers, unless one mistakes having a pretty voice for "singing" in the same way people underestimate Ringo's drumming because he didn't have a million drums and call attention to his playing.

Interesting discussion about Jagger's vocal strengths and weaknesses.

One thing I've always wondered about: what if at least some of Jagger's "decline" is attributable to physical changes in his voice?

Obviously, his voice has aged considerably. It's much more brittle at the top and thin to the point of non-existence on the bottom. He could deliver gems like "Sway" and "Let it Loose" in the very early 70's ... but by the 75 TOTA he had become a slurring mess.

Is it possible that he simply could not sing like "Sway" or "Loose" anymore and adopted what some of us now see as his more "artificial" techniques?

Quote
LongBeachArena72
Interesting discussion about Jagger's vocal strengths and weaknesses.

One thing I've always wondered about: what if at least some of Jagger's "decline" is attributable to physical changes in his voice?

Obviously, his voice has aged considerably. It's much more brittle at the top and thin to the point of non-existence on the bottom. He could deliver gems like "Sway" and "Let it Loose" in the very early 70's ... but by the 75 TOTA he had become a slurring mess.

Is it possible that he simply could not sing like "Sway" or "Loose" anymore and adopted what some of us now see as his more "artificial" techniques?

I think you're right. But the technical aspects are an entirely different issue than his sincere emotion (lyrically and vocally), then vs. now. Compare with Leonard Cohen, who never had a great vocal range. Now he has barely any at all. Yet I don't think anyone who has seen him perform recently would question the seriousness and artistic integrity of his performance. Tom Waits, likewise. It's what you do with what you have.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LongBeachArena72
Interesting discussion about Jagger's vocal strengths and weaknesses.

One thing I've always wondered about: what if at least some of Jagger's "decline" is attributable to physical changes in his voice?

Obviously, his voice has aged considerably. It's much more brittle at the top and thin to the point of non-existence on the bottom. He could deliver gems like "Sway" and "Let it Loose" in the very early 70's ... but by the 75 TOTA he had become a slurring mess.

Is it possible that he simply could not sing like "Sway" or "Loose" anymore and adopted what some of us now see as his more "artificial" techniques?

I think you're right. But the technical aspects are an entirely different issue than his sincere emotion (lyrically and vocally), then vs. now. Compare with Leonard Cohen, who never had a great vocal range. Now he has barely any at all. Yet I don't think anyone who has seen him perform recently would question the seriousness and artistic integrity of his performance. Tom Waits, likewise. It's what you do with what you have.

Agreed.

I sometimes ask myself what would be more suprising: a new Jagger vocal as impassioned as "Let It Loose" or a new Jagger/Richards composition as remarkable as "Let It Loose"?