>> it goes without saying Keith isn't technically a good singer <<
okay, against my better judgement i am going to go ahead and take exception to this, just because it is a constant puzzlement to me that so many people - including many who seem to dig Keith a lot - repeat this kind of thing. if you mean "Keith doesn't have the lungpower that Mick has": true enough - and there's a lot more to great singing than lungpower. if you mean "Keith does unexpected things with his singing, things that are harder for some people to 'get' than is typical for these genres of music": absolutely. what Keith does with his voice is "technically" excellent - why else do you think he's so effective? and he keeps getting better.
the sweetvoiced guitarist we hear on the 60s and 70s stuff is very fetching indeed, but "technically" Keith started making great leaps forward as a lead vocalist in the 80s. he found his "sweet spot", he unleashed all that texture and *feeling* that seems to bowl people over so much that they don't even notice how melodic he is. his LV turns are almost always real challenging melodically; and he makes it sound as natural as breathing and totally inimitable at the same time. that is no accident; that is *brilliant*.
listen to This Place.
listen to Careless Ethiopians on True Love.
listen to Love Hurts from Sin City.
forget the gormless journalists' one-dimensional comments and *listen* to what Keith is doing with his voice. and if all else fails, think logically: it's not some kind of fluke that he's one of the two lead vocalists in the greatest band in the history of everything. that cat can *sing*.
"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith