Tell Me :
Talk
I know Keith's voice has worn a bit over the years, but I'm more referring to the 60s-90s. I know Mick is obviously the lead singer, and his voice is amazing. I just think Keith has a softer voice. Just my opinion
Ah man, awesome comment! Couldn't agree more!
Spot on, pass the hearing aid onto Backstreet, he needs it far more than you.
Good way of putting it. I think Mick's voice is very designed for rock, where as Keith can pull off rock, ballads, country, even a bit of reggae.
Yeah, and Mick Jagger IS Pavarotti. A philanderer who loves musical crossover...
Yeah I really agree with you. It seems to me that Keith has two singing voices; he's got his more up-tempo, higher pitched voice (for songs like Happy or Before they Make me Run), and then, like you said, he's got this really warm and crackly deeper voice for songs like How Can I Stop or This Place is Empty.
Yup.
I remember that Wyman quote. IIRC, he actually said, "He isn't exactly Pavarotti, is he?" referring to Mick. It didn't come across as a slam at all. I believe he was conveying that, although Mick isn't a "technically" great singer, he's a great entertainer.
On topic... like others have expressed here, I love both Mick & Keith's solo vocals for different reasons. When they come together in harmony, it's sublime music to my ears
. Of course, I wish they'd do so more often onstage. Some on this board have accused Keith of laziness, but I don't think that's the reason he has opted out of singing backup. I believe he needs to preserve his voice for his own 2-3 song set. When Keith was doing a lot of backup vocals on the '81 tour, his voice became very rough & strained as the tour went on. So...as much as I'd love to hear the Glimmers doing much harmonizing live, I understand why that's not feasible and appreciate the beautiful vocals Keith brings to his own set.
Keith...How about the Voodoo Lounge bootleg with Keith singing lead on all the tracks...That is how Voodoo should have been released...
If (also know as "Moon is Up"...
How about the Gimme Shelter with Keith...
Keith has a harder edged Rock N' Roll voice which I prefer he just smoked it out with cigs....
And when was the last time they sang any harmony together ????
Agree...almost like a wispy voiced little brother trying to be kool singing in a Rock N' Roll band right after the older brother just ripped it up.
I don't really agree, but I admit it has been damaged through the years. But you're entitled to your own opinion, I know not everyone agrees with me, same with you.
Jaggers vocals are so digitaly enhanced live, you would have to be a numbskull to not realize it...It is all part of the sell job !!!
And when was the last time they did this ?????
Seems more likely that you have no ears.
I would like to smoke whatever this guy is smoking!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
stones2000
()
Date: March 31, 2015 05:29
Hi. I had the idea for this thread, I thought it could make an interesting topic. Who do you think has the better singing voice, Mick or Keith? Personally, I think Keith is better than Mick at the slower ballads (Slipping Away, How Can I Stop, etc).
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
backstreetboy1
()
Date: March 31, 2015 05:31
i think you need a hearing aid.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
stones2000
()
Date: March 31, 2015 05:34
Quote
backstreetboy1
i think you need a hearing aid.
I know Keith's voice has worn a bit over the years, but I'm more referring to the 60s-90s. I know Mick is obviously the lead singer, and his voice is amazing. I just think Keith has a softer voice. Just my opinion
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
eyesoftheworld
()
Date: March 31, 2015 05:37
They both have lovely voices and am looking forward to hearing both of them sing later this year.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 31, 2015 05:52
Forget the whole "vs" thing...no comment...but.....When they are singing harmony together it is greater than the sum of it's parts!
peace
peace
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
stones2000
()
Date: March 31, 2015 06:15
Quote
Naturalust
Forget the whole "vs" thing...no comment...but.....When they are singing harmony together it is greater than the sum of it's parts!
peace
Ah man, awesome comment! Couldn't agree more!
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
MaryPoppins
()
Date: March 31, 2015 07:34
I love hearing Mick and Keith together. I wish they would do it more often and leave out the backing voices. Yes, Keith's voice is rough and gravely but it's full of emotion which is perfect for ballads.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
JamesMadison
()
Date: March 31, 2015 16:12
This is Keith's best vocal, actually sings in tune with Mick Jagger. First and only time.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: April 6, 2015 04:43
Quote
stones2000Quote
backstreetboy1
i think you need a hearing aid.
I know Keith's voice has worn a bit over the years, but I'm more referring to the 60s-90s. I know Mick is obviously the lead singer, and his voice is amazing. I just think Keith has a softer voice. Just my opinion
Spot on, pass the hearing aid onto Backstreet, he needs it far more than you.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
stones2000
()
Date: April 6, 2015 07:18
Quote
jhnpaolin1
I have to agree. keith has damaged his voice over the years, but as far as tonality , keith actually sings as were mich sort of talk/sings. keith is better at singing in tune
Good way of putting it. I think Mick's voice is very designed for rock, where as Keith can pull off rock, ballads, country, even a bit of reggae.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
Greg
()
Date: April 6, 2015 08:18
After a Keith-song Micks voice sounds thin in my ears, almost trivial. Luckily the feeling disappears.
----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."
"Shit!... No shit, awright!"
----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."
"Shit!... No shit, awright!"
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: April 6, 2015 08:34
Mick is the lead singer for a reason, and as Bill commented in Stone Alone, or was it some interview somewhere, "Keith isn't exactly Pavarotti, is he?"....
However, in just the right type of Keith moment there is a crackly warmth there, a soulful earnestness that Mick rarely ever displays, especially in later years. I was visited with this thought during a recent listening of Steel Wheels. Good as the album is, I was nonetheless noticing how apparent was Mick's attempt to sound current and compete with the younger bands and music of the times... when along comes the last track, Slipping Away, and lo and behold Steel Wheels is at last sounding like a Stones album. Suddenly an album that had been mostly a slick package of trendy posturing became timeless and real and in a completely non-self-conscious way.
However, in just the right type of Keith moment there is a crackly warmth there, a soulful earnestness that Mick rarely ever displays, especially in later years. I was visited with this thought during a recent listening of Steel Wheels. Good as the album is, I was nonetheless noticing how apparent was Mick's attempt to sound current and compete with the younger bands and music of the times... when along comes the last track, Slipping Away, and lo and behold Steel Wheels is at last sounding like a Stones album. Suddenly an album that had been mostly a slick package of trendy posturing became timeless and real and in a completely non-self-conscious way.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
RomanCandle
()
Date: April 6, 2015 08:53
Quote
stonehearted
Mick is the lead singer for a reason, and as Bill commented in Stone Alone, or was it some interview somewhere, "Keith isn't exactly Pavarotti, is he?"....
Yeah, and Mick Jagger IS Pavarotti. A philanderer who loves musical crossover...
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
stones2000
()
Date: April 6, 2015 09:15
Quote
stonehearted
Mick is the lead singer for a reason, and as Bill commented in Stone Alone, or was it some interview somewhere, "Keith isn't exactly Pavarotti, is he?"....
However, in just the right type of Keith moment there is a crackly warmth there, a soulful earnestness that Mick rarely ever displays, especially in later years. I was visited with this thought during a recent listening of Steel Wheels. Good as the album is, I was nonetheless noticing how apparent was Mick's attempt to sound current and compete with the younger bands and music of the times... when along comes the last track, Slipping Away, and lo and behold Steel Wheels is at last sounding like a Stones album. Suddenly an album that had been mostly a slick package of trendy posturing became timeless and real and in a completely non-self-conscious way.
Yeah I really agree with you. It seems to me that Keith has two singing voices; he's got his more up-tempo, higher pitched voice (for songs like Happy or Before they Make me Run), and then, like you said, he's got this really warm and crackly deeper voice for songs like How Can I Stop or This Place is Empty.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
SomeTorontoGirl
()
Date: April 6, 2015 11:49
Quote
Naturalust
Forget the whole "vs" thing...no comment...but.....When they are singing harmony together it is greater than the sum of it's parts!
Yup.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
Plink
()
Date: April 6, 2015 14:30
Quote
RomanCandleQuote
stonehearted
Mick is the lead singer for a reason, and as Bill commented in Stone Alone, or was it some interview somewhere, "Keith isn't exactly Pavarotti, is he?"....
Yeah, and Mick Jagger IS Pavarotti. A philanderer who loves musical crossover...
I remember that Wyman quote. IIRC, he actually said, "He isn't exactly Pavarotti, is he?" referring to Mick. It didn't come across as a slam at all. I believe he was conveying that, although Mick isn't a "technically" great singer, he's a great entertainer.
On topic... like others have expressed here, I love both Mick & Keith's solo vocals for different reasons. When they come together in harmony, it's sublime music to my ears
. Of course, I wish they'd do so more often onstage. Some on this board have accused Keith of laziness, but I don't think that's the reason he has opted out of singing backup. I believe he needs to preserve his voice for his own 2-3 song set. When Keith was doing a lot of backup vocals on the '81 tour, his voice became very rough & strained as the tour went on. So...as much as I'd love to hear the Glimmers doing much harmonizing live, I understand why that's not feasible and appreciate the beautiful vocals Keith brings to his own set.Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: April 6, 2015 18:25
Yeah or Mick vs Bill vocals...btw Ronnie is the second best singer in Stones...mind I have never heard Charlie's
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
2120Wolf
()
Date: April 6, 2015 23:13
Quote
stones2000
Hi. I had the idea for this thread, I thought it could make an interesting topic. Who do you think has the better singing voice, Mick or Keith? Personally, I think Keith is better than Mick at the slower ballads (Slipping Away, How Can I Stop, etc).
Keith...How about the Voodoo Lounge bootleg with Keith singing lead on all the tracks...That is how Voodoo should have been released...
If (also know as "Moon is Up"...
How about the Gimme Shelter with Keith...
Keith has a harder edged Rock N' Roll voice which I prefer he just smoked it out with cigs....
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
2120Wolf
()
Date: April 6, 2015 23:20
Quote
Naturalust
Forget the whole "vs" thing...no comment...but.....When they are singing harmony together it is greater than the sum of it's parts!
peace
And when was the last time they sang any harmony together ????
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
2120Wolf
()
Date: April 6, 2015 23:23
Quote
Greg
After a Keith-song Micks voice sounds thin in my ears, almost trivial. Luckily the feeling disappears.
Agree...almost like a wispy voiced little brother trying to be kool singing in a Rock N' Roll band right after the older brother just ripped it up.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: April 7, 2015 01:31
SERIOUSLY? You'd actually ask that question? Keith HAS no voice.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
stones2000
()
Date: April 7, 2015 01:41
Quote
mickschix
SERIOUSLY? You'd actually ask that question? Keith HAS no voice.
I don't really agree, but I admit it has been damaged through the years. But you're entitled to your own opinion, I know not everyone agrees with me, same with you.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
2120Wolf
()
Date: April 7, 2015 04:18
Jaggers vocals are so digitaly enhanced live, you would have to be a numbskull to not realize it...
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
2120Wolf
()
Date: April 7, 2015 04:19
Quote
mickschix
SERIOUSLY? You'd actually ask that question? Keith HAS no voice.
Jaggers vocals are so digitaly enhanced live, you would have to be a numbskull to not realize it...It is all part of the sell job !!!
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
2120Wolf
()
Date: April 7, 2015 04:20
Quote
SomeTorontoGirlQuote
Naturalust
Forget the whole "vs" thing...no comment...but.....When they are singing harmony together it is greater than the sum of it's parts!
Yup.
And when was the last time they did this ?????
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: April 7, 2015 04:41
Its funny. I have always liked Keith's voice. Now granted, he has gone through phases live where he basically is just croaking, but when he is on and his voice is strong, it is beautiful. And I also think he has improved with age. Listening to his solo stuff, and live performance, such as Love Hurts with Norah Jones, his voice is beautiful. Strong, clear, and so full of emotion.
Mick can be hit or miss for me. I am a long time fan, but as I have gotten older I am not as into his satirical approach to many of their songs. But I still love his voice, but miss the live edge he had as a younger Mick, where now he is all about the training, and routine so as to not blow his voice out. Fair enough.
And as many posters have said, I love it when the two of them are singing together. And it is a shame they don't do that more often, and often I reflect on how intimate it is to be singing with someone and that could be the truest gauge on how they are doing personally.
Mick can be hit or miss for me. I am a long time fan, but as I have gotten older I am not as into his satirical approach to many of their songs. But I still love his voice, but miss the live edge he had as a younger Mick, where now he is all about the training, and routine so as to not blow his voice out. Fair enough.
And as many posters have said, I love it when the two of them are singing together. And it is a shame they don't do that more often, and often I reflect on how intimate it is to be singing with someone and that could be the truest gauge on how they are doing personally.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: April 7, 2015 07:06
Quote
mickschix
SERIOUSLY? You'd actually ask that question? Keith HAS no voice.
Seems more likely that you have no ears.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
strat72
()
Date: April 7, 2015 07:30
Mick can't sing, he's no Otis Redding. He has a great voice though, and one that is very recognisable. One of the great rock n roll voices!
Keith can't sing, and he does not have a great voice either.
Keith can't sing, and he does not have a great voice either.
Re: Mick vs Keith vocals
Posted by:
strat72
()
Date: April 7, 2015 07:33
Quote
2120Wolf
Jaggers vocals are so digitaly enhanced live, you would have to be a numbskull to not realize it...
I would like to smoke whatever this guy is smoking!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
bakersfield , Broesel2404 , crholmstrom , deardoctor , Irix , IsakSun , letitloose6 , Nankstone , pjb , rastakeith , Slop , spunky , vlaci66 , xke38
Guests:
2791
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10