Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
2120Wolf

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
2120Wolf

Quote
TheBlockbuster
Jagger of course.
The Beatles is not in the same category of greatness as The Stones is. No other band is.
It annoys me that people even compare them.
Jagger could probably sing The Beatles songs really good, while Lennon singing Stones songs would have been awful.

My guess is that your about 13 years old....Correct
I can tell by your grammer...
The Beatles is not in the same category of greatness as The Stones is

Without the Beatles the Stones would just be retiring from their 9-5's.
And the Stones would be the first to admit it.

Oh please, sorry that I'm not from an English speaking country...

Yes I can tell by your musical knowledge...Very Well !!!

Why is musical knowledge equal to thinking The Beatles is a good band?
I've simply never felt anything other than boredom when hearing their songs.

Thats some strange S@#$
Just wondering if you have a soul...thats all ???

Quote
treaclefingers
Both are great...but I prefer Jagger's.

Kool !!!

Love both, but for me there's no contest. While Lennon was singing Twist and Shout (great song) Jagger was belting Confessin' the Blues. If I have to pick one, I'll take Mick thanks.

I love them both. But Lennon. His voice was masterful. So full of force and edge, and when needed tender. Also a very versatile vocalist. Jagger is great for The Stones and for some of his solo stuff. But he also often relies on very dramatic vocalizing almost boarding on satire. And Jagger just does not have the vocal range Lennon did.

Quote
Pietro
The thing about Lennon is, if he hadn't died prematurely, everyone would think he was horrible. He was on an extreme downward projectery at the time of his death. His last album was hideous.

Thanks for posting. Statements like this always confirm that it was a good decision to give up the hootch....

Quote
2120Wolf

Quote
Naturalust
The best of Lennon and Jagger are both suberb and beyond comparison. But on the other end, some of Jagger's stuff is pretty bad, but he's had a much longer career to find the questionable vocals and John can't dance and sing at the same time so comparisons are still rather meaningless.

I just wish John were still around to make some modern day comparisons.

peace

Skip the modern day 62-70

The best songs from both of them during that era, especially near the end of the 60's were both great and beyond comparison. But if I look at the early and mid-60's I tend to lean towards Lennon as the better of the two. But I tend to look at songs as composites of all the instruments, vocals and arrangements and have a tough time separating the vocals and judging them, unless they are really stand out as good or bad. Some imperfect vocals are still great because they fit the song for other reasons like emotional content, poetic value and rhythmic or melodic service to the song. Also Lennon was often playing guitar as he was singing, often writing and performing both parts, something that we didn't see often from Jagger during that period.

In terms of pure tone and feel for rock and roll I think vocalists like (early) Rod Stewart, Bryan Adams, Steve Marriott and Paul Rogers are hard to beat and are better than either Jagger or Lennon as stand alone rock vocalists.

peace

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
Love both, but for me there's no contest. While Lennon was singing Twist and Shout (great song) Jagger was belting Confessin' the Blues. If I have to pick one, I'll take Mick thanks.

Good Choice...But John was singing Twist in Shout in 62 and recording it in 63'
Confessin was 2 years later.
In 63 John was also singing & recording..."Baby its You" "Misery" "Anna" "Please Please Me" & "There's A Place"

All before the Stones ever stepped inside a studio....

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
2120Wolf

Quote
Naturalust
The best of Lennon and Jagger are both suberb and beyond comparison. But on the other end, some of Jagger's stuff is pretty bad, but he's had a much longer career to find the questionable vocals and John can't dance and sing at the same time so comparisons are still rather meaningless.

I just wish John were still around to make some modern day comparisons.

peace

Skip the modern day 62-70

The best songs from both of them during that era, especially near the end of the 60's were both great and beyond comparison. But if I look at the early and mid-60's I tend to lean towards Lennon as the better of the two. But I tend to look at songs as composites of all the instruments, vocals and arrangements and have a tough time separating the vocals and judging them, unless they are really stand out as good or bad. Some imperfect vocals are still great because they fit the song for other reasons like emotional content, poetic value and rhythmic or melodic service to the song. Also Lennon was often playing guitar as he was singing, often writing and performing both parts, something that we didn't see often from Jagger during that period.

In terms of pure tone and feel for rock and roll I think vocalists like (early) Rod Stewart, Bryan Adams, Steve Marriott and Paul Rogers are hard to beat and are better than either Jagger or Lennon as stand alone rock vocalists.

peace

Hard for me to agree that any of the afformentioned can compare with
"Baby its You" "Misery" "Anna" "Please Please Me" & "There's A Place"

To me Rod Stewart, Bryan Adams, Steve Marriott and Paul Rogers really are not even in the same league...they are like the "B" team don't ya think ???
They'd be the first to admit it....

Lennon, Jagger and Dylan are the three greatest rock and roll singers of all time! I could never decide which is the best.

Quote
whitem8
I love them both. But Lennon. His voice was masterful. So full of force and edge, and when needed tender. Also a very versatile vocalist. Jagger is great for The Stones and for some of his solo stuff. But he also often relies on very dramatic vocalizing almost boarding on satire. And Jagger just does not have the vocal range Lennon did.

I think your point that Lennon was a versatile vocalist is true as far as the many styles of music he could tackle. However, when it comes to interpreting the genre of blues/rhythm and blues, I think Jagger has it over Lennon.

Quote
2120Wolf
To me Rod Stewart, Bryan Adams, Steve Marriott and Paul Rogers really are not even in the same league...they are like the "B" team don't ya think ???
They'd be the first to admit it....

Not to my ears, those guys are the creme de la creme of rock vocalists, imo.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
2120Wolf
To me Rod Stewart, Bryan Adams, Steve Marriott and Paul Rogers really are not even in the same league...they are like the "B" team don't ya think ???
They'd be the first to admit it....

Not to my ears, those guys are the creme de la creme of rock vocalists, imo.

peace

Kool...they don't cut it for me, some of it is alright, I would'nt go out of my way to listen to it and years back when it came on the radio I would switch it.

Oh and then there is the Rock N' Daddy of them all......Howlin Wolf

The Skids.....into the valley

...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-04 09:48 by RomanCandle.

Quote
2120Wolf

Quote
RomanCandle
Here are some ideas to help you sleep tonight:

First level of consciousness:
- Both were great.

2nd level of consciousness:
- Both were crap, Elvis was way better.

3rd level of consciousness
- Billy Idol has the best rock 'n' roll voice, actually

4th level of consciousness:
- Rock'n'roll is crap, you'd better listen to Kanye

Wow your kool, you go thru different levels of consciousness:
But you grade a zero on accurate insight ????
I haven't slept properly since 78" right after they toured behind Some Girls....
Back when they toured behind albums that weren't 44 years old...

Since I can't find a proper job right now, I'm thinking of working in a sect.

Our symbol:



Our Ave Maris Stella:




Our qamis





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-04 09:47 by RomanCandle.

...

Quote
TheBlockbuster
I've simply never felt anything other than boredom when hearing their songs.

Even "I Am The Walrus" ?

peace

silly question Naturalist. Someone commenting like that will never be swayed by any argument or debate on a blog.

Lennon's voice was rock n' roll. So many examples. And he could belt out so passionately. Strange thing is that he was very self conscious about his voice. But man he had the goods.

I think his voice was not even comparable to Bryan Adams! I really don't like his music or voice, as I find it very generic.

Stewart had a brilliant voice.

Paul Rogers is ok, but very monotone.

Kanye...well to me he's a wannabe. Hack. Commercial package you just add water to for instant noodles. And he sure ain't anything to do with rock n' roll.

Jagger is more rock N´roll man.
Voices...both are good...great.

Quote
whitem8
silly question Naturalist. Someone commenting like that will never be swayed by any argument or debate on a blog.

Lennon's voice was rock n' roll. So many examples. And he could belt out so passionately. Strange thing is that he was very self conscious about his voice. But man he had the goods.

I think his voice was not even comparable to Bryan Adams! I really don't like his music or voice, as I find it very generic.

Stewart had a brilliant voice.

Paul Rogers is ok, but very monotone.

Kanye...well to me he's a wannabe. Hack. Commercial package you just add water to for instant noodles. And he sure ain't anything to do with rock n' roll.

I hear ya whitem8. I just thought the guy might have actually missed listening to Walrus.

And I'm not much for Bryan Adams music either but the tone and soul in his voice were pretty hard to ignore. And I respect your opinion on Paul Rogers but I would replace "monotone" with "consistent". And he's still sounding consistently good to me.

As far as Kanye goes, most of what I've heard him sing is so obviously processed by heavy effects, harmonizers, auto-tuners and more I can only imagine he needs all the help he can get to deliver a convincing vocal.

san dti phaap

If I want to hear a GREAT voice I just have to listen to Elvis, Kathleen Ferrier or Fischer-Dieskau. Unfortunately none of them has released a great rap album.

Romancandle, just curious, why are you even posting on a site for a rock band when you clearly like rap and not rock? Seems strange. And thank god none of the artists you mentioned ever made a rap album!

Quote
whitem8
Romancandle, just curious, why are you even posting on a site for a rock band when you clearly like rap and not rock? Seems strange. And thank god none of the artists you mentioned ever made a rap album!

How do you know this?

I prefer Lennon to Jagger. But Jagger was fantastic in his prime.

That said, I prefer both McCartney and David Bowie over them.

One man's cup of coffee, is another man's cup of tea...

Lennon could never sing Wild Horses, or Tumbling Dice. Mick has way more soul.

Mick all the way.

Quote
MileHigh
Lennon could never sing Wild Horses, or Tumbling Dice. Mick has way more soul.

Mick all the way.

True. Like Jagger could never sing "Mother" or "Cold Turkey" with the same guts either. Pointless discussion. Music is not a contest.

Quote
2120Wolf

Quote
RomanCandle
Here are some ideas to help you sleep tonight:

First level of consciousness:
- Both were great.

2nd level of consciousness:
- Both were crap, Elvis was way better.

3rd level of consciousness
- Billy Idol has the best rock 'n' roll voice, actually

4th level of consciousness:
- Rock'n'roll is crap, you'd better listen to Kanye

Wow your kool, you go thru different levels of consciousness:
But you grade a zero on accurate insight ????
I haven't slept properly since 78" right after they toured behind Some Girls....
Back when they toured behind albums that weren't 44 years old...

They aren't touring behind Sticky Fingers.

Ringo or Charlie ?



ROCKMAN

Quote
Pietro
The thing about Lennon is, if he hadn't died prematurely, everyone would think he was horrible. He was on an extreme downward projectery at the time of his death. His last album was hideous.

Yep getting murdered was a great career move :-(



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-04 12:35 by exhpart.