Quote
chop
David Lee Roth crushes them both

Well, thats a given...

Not true at all, Stoneage! Mick CAN really sing..or are you just not listening and have lived under a rock for the last 15 years. Mick's voice is still in top form, and yes he does have a vocal coach but at 72 he SHOULD have a coach. Any singer who can nail "That's How Strong MY Love Is" in his late 60's and Gimme Shelter, Worried About You with terrific falsetto in his 70's is a singer for the ages. Daltrey had a tremendous voice in the late 60's and 70's but apparently did not take good enough care of his voice over the years..that's a shame really. I've seen the WHO about 7 times from 1970 - 2001 and Roger's voice has certainly faded.
Yes, Chop, Mick's voice IS stronger than McCartney's. Paul's voice quivers now. MY Love is an example of that shakiness. Let's face it, Mick has earned the title of greatest frontman EVER!

Quote
everwest1

Quote
chop
David Lee Roth crushes them both

Well, thats a given...

I'm not a avid fan, but hasn't David Lee Roth had his vocal challenges lately?
Seems there was some talk prior to the latest tour that he was not sounding
right.

Quote
mickschix
Daltrey had a tremendous voice in the late 60's and 70's but apparently did not take good enough care of his voice over the years..that's a shame really. I've seen the WHO about 7 times from 1970 - 2001 and Roger's voice has certainly faded.

It has, and doing that Banshee scream in "Won't get Fooled" every night doesn't help. The songs of The Who demand alot from the lead singer, and I don't know how he could have taken better care of his voice. If Roger sang their songs live like Mick sang the Stones' tunes over the last 20 years, the performance would have sucked. At the same time, I'm grateful that Mick knows when not to reach for it.

Quote
carlorossi

Quote
mickschix
Daltrey had a tremendous voice in the late 60's and 70's but apparently did not take good enough care of his voice over the years..that's a shame really. I've seen the WHO about 7 times from 1970 - 2001 and Roger's voice has certainly faded.

It has, and doing that Banshee scream in "Won't get Fooled" every night doesn't help. The songs of The Who demand alot from the lead singer, and I don't know how he could have taken better care of his voice. If Roger sang their songs live like Mick sang the Stones' tunes over the last 20 years, the performance would have sucked. At the same time, I'm grateful that Mick knows when not to reach for it.

Hmmm, interesting idea of whether Mick has preserved his voice better than Roger or even Macca. I'd say the answer is pretty obviously yes but would also say that both Roger and Macca sings songs with considerable more dynamics and range than Mick and are considerable less fearful about pushing those limits to do the song justice and make a good performance. I doubt Mick could sing himself through a Who show or a Macca show.

Yes it's nice that Mick takes care of his voice but for God's sake there is something so un-rock and roll about it. lol I have heard him many times sing lines in lower melodies or let Lisa and Bernard carry the powerful parts of certain choruses or even change keys of entire songs. Sometimes I wish he would push himself a little more, there is little enough danger in Stones music these days as it is. But yeah for 72 he is pretty amazing but I wouldn't take anything away from Roger or Macca in comparison because they are too.

A guy that still got his fantastic voice from the sixties is Gary Brooker from Procol Harum...and of course 'drumroll': Tom Jones...

2 1 2 0

Quote
swimtothemoon

Quote
everwest1

Quote
chop
David Lee Roth crushes them both

Well, thats a given...

I'm not a avid fan, but hasn't David Lee Roth had his vocal challenges lately?
Seems there was some talk prior to the latest tour that he was not sounding right.

Yeah, I was kidding.. and "doesnt sound quite right" is a polite way to put it and
I guarantee you I dont spend any time, not 1 second, on the Van Halen fan boards talking about it.

If Mick sounded as worn out as DLR I would sit on the side lines and not say a word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-03 12:56 by everwest1.

YES! I saw Tom Jones 4 years ago and he has GREAT PIPES! And he is over 70 too! As far as Mick pushing his voice, I say that I am grateful he has NOT because if he blew out the pipes just to show he can push it to the max..at the expense of never touring again, I vote for the conservative approach..and realistically, it's not Mick's fault that Stones songs are not written to blow out the ole pipes. There are not " Won't Get Fooled Again" type songs in the Stones catalog...unless you consider " Let It Loose", my personal favorite which I suspect they will NEVER perform live....maybe for that very reason. Outside of that song, how many other songs are really that aggressive?

Quote
mickschix
YES! I saw Tom Jones 4 years ago and he has GREAT PIPES! And he is over 70 too! As far as Mick pushing his voice, I say that I am grateful he has NOT because if he blew out the pipes just to show he can push it to the max..at the expense of never touring again, I vote for the conservative approach..and realistically, it's not Mick's fault that Stones songs are not written to blow out the ole pipes. There are not " Won't Get Fooled Again" type songs in the Stones catalog...unless you consider " Let It Loose", my personal favorite which I suspect they will NEVER perform live....maybe for that very reason. Outside of that song, how many other songs are really that aggressive?

The problem arises, though, as a result of this "saving his voice," that you have atrocities like "Heartbreaker" in 2015. (I think from Milwaukee, maybe?) The way Mick must sing this now makes the song simply not worth performing -- he can't get at the emotional core of the "heartbreaking" the song's about. I think we're getting used to his "shortcuts" on warhorses; they're familiar and we accept their slightly diminished performance. It's when they play these lesser-performed songs, in my opinion, that the difference between "today" and Mick's prime is most pronounced.

Quote
mickschix
YES! I saw Tom Jones 4 years ago and he has GREAT PIPES! And he is over 70 too! As far as Mick pushing his voice, I say that I am grateful he has NOT because if he blew out the pipes just to show he can push it to the max..at the expense of never touring again, I vote for the conservative approach..and realistically, it's not Mick's fault that Stones songs are not written to blow out the ole pipes. There are not " Won't Get Fooled Again" type songs in the Stones catalog...unless you consider " Let It Loose", my personal favorite which I suspect they will NEVER perform live....maybe for that very reason. Outside of that song, how many other songs are really that aggressive?

"rip this joint" is pretty aggressive

True, Keef. I saw it performed in 1972...very raw and fiery! " Out Of Control " gets pretty aggressive too. It's not a matter of whether or not Mick CAN deliver a strong version, it's whether or not he chooses to.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
mickschix
YES! I saw Tom Jones 4 years ago and he has GREAT PIPES! And he is over 70 too! As far as Mick pushing his voice, I say that I am grateful he has NOT because if he blew out the pipes just to show he can push it to the max..at the expense of never touring again, I vote for the conservative approach..and realistically, it's not Mick's fault that Stones songs are not written to blow out the ole pipes. There are not " Won't Get Fooled Again" type songs in the Stones catalog...unless you consider " Let It Loose", my personal favorite which I suspect they will NEVER perform live....maybe for that very reason. Outside of that song, how many other songs are really that aggressive?

The problem arises, though, as a result of this "saving his voice," that you have atrocities like "Heartbreaker" in 2015. (I think from Milwaukee, maybe?) The way Mick must sing this now makes the song simply not worth performing -- he can't get at the emotional core of the "heartbreaking" the song's about. I think we're getting used to his "shortcuts" on warhorses; they're familiar and we accept their slightly diminished performance. It's when they play these lesser-performed songs, in my opinion, that the difference between "today" and Mick's prime is most pronounced.

Very well put my friend. Although I still get a bit uncomfortable with his shortcuts and when he relies on Lisa and Bernard to pull it off..I notice it every time. But you are so right, nothing shows the decline more than when he does a song like Heartbreaker and misses both the melody and the feel.

But....then he surprises me and pulls of some very good performances. Moonlight Mile was excellently sung, imo. Not sure if Mick has ever been truly consistent in his vocal performances throughout a show or a tour. Sometimes he's great sometimes not so great, but overall he does entertain and as such I'm willing to forgive. That's to say nothing of the pure joy he's given me with some of the records.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
mickschix
YES! I saw Tom Jones 4 years ago and he has GREAT PIPES! And he is over 70 too! As far as Mick pushing his voice, I say that I am grateful he has NOT because if he blew out the pipes just to show he can push it to the max..at the expense of never touring again, I vote for the conservative approach..and realistically, it's not Mick's fault that Stones songs are not written to blow out the ole pipes. There are not " Won't Get Fooled Again" type songs in the Stones catalog...unless you consider " Let It Loose", my personal favorite which I suspect they will NEVER perform live....maybe for that very reason. Outside of that song, how many other songs are really that aggressive?

The problem arises, though, as a result of this "saving his voice," that you have atrocities like "Heartbreaker" in 2015. (I think from Milwaukee, maybe?) The way Mick must sing this now makes the song simply not worth performing -- he can't get at the emotional core of the "heartbreaking" the song's about. I think we're getting used to his "shortcuts" on warhorses; they're familiar and we accept their slightly diminished performance. It's when they play these lesser-performed songs, in my opinion, that the difference between "today" and Mick's prime is most pronounced.

Very well put my friend. Although I still get a bit uncomfortable with his shortcuts and when he relies on Lisa and Bernard to pull it off..I notice it every time. But you are so right, nothing shows the decline more than when he does a song like Heartbreaker and misses both the melody and the feel.

But....then he surprises me and pulls of some very good performances. Moonlight Mile was excellently sung, imo. Not sure if Mick has ever been truly consistent in his vocal performances throughout a show or a tour. Sometimes he's great sometimes not so great, but overall he does entertain and as such I'm willing to forgive. That's to say nothing of the pure joy he's given me with some of the records.

I thought Mick was wonderful on MM this year; several of his performances were very moving. And the band almost slowed down enough to get it right ... if only there had been another guitarist available who might've helped them hit the magic of that original tempo ...

Been a very long time since I´ve posted here, but comparing Mick and Roger, there is only one winner, Mick. Roger sounds like he is fighting for every note. Mick sounds great as always.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I thought Mick was wonderful on MM this year; several of his performances were very moving. And the band almost slowed down enough to get it right ... if only there had been another guitarist available who might've helped them hit the magic of that original tempo ...

Yes! That dreamy tempo of the original is certainly one of the things that make that recording so wonderful. I'm so conscious of it I've actually counted out the beats per minute on previous live performances and have been strongly lobbying for them to slow it down here on iorr for a long time. lol I actually got the feeling someone was listening this year when the tempo came down!

But of course it still was faster than the original. I'm not sure Mick would ever consider playing it live at the original tempo and imagine it would be torture for him. It kind of represents a dream like sleep state which is exactly what he seems so fearful of in his audience. As least we will always have the SF record because that is a masterpiece.

Speaking of Micks singing this year, I also noticed his few obvious slips seemed to come near the end of the shows, right before the closers. I often wondered if it was a hearing problem with either fatigued ears, a vocal physiological problem, a brain problem or a monitor problem....I mean he was plain out of tune a few times, uncharacteristically so. (save me the "who cares" it's Mick Jagger and he's 72 and we're lucky to have him comments guys...I know all that)

Personally, I think Mick and Roger aren't singing very well anymore. Still entertaining though.

Slightly off topic here, but a cute story nonetheless: My four year old son likes "Won't Get Fooled Again", alot. But he thinks the words are "won't get food again". I explained to him what the words are, and the short version of what they mean, and he said, "no, he says food". Oh well.

Quote
carlorossi
Slightly off topic here, but a cute story nonetheless: My four year old son likes "Won't Get Fooled Again", alot. But he thinks the words are "won't get food again". I explained to him what the words are, and the short version of what they mean, and he said, "no, he says food". Oh well.

I always thought it was "wont get food again" too. Your son is correct here.

Isnt it a hunger strike song or something? Or maybe a diet song?


You can tell him next time he is sent to his room without dinner (do parents still do that?) that he wont get food again and he can sing his song about about