Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stone4ever

I heard him sing two tracks from Blue And lonesome live on the last tour, he sounded nothing like he did in the studio.

If that's the criterion - to sing live like in a record - Jagger never has been able to sing, or have been 'cheating' in the studio since the day one. . I am still waiting the day when he could deliver "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Satisfaction" or "Angie" or "Paint It Black" or "Gimme Shelter" live as I have heard him doing in an original recording, and he's been trying that for over 50 years.. Some cool versions along the years, but still not matching with those unique originals...

- Doxa

Totally agree with the statement bolded above. The myth is that Mick was once a great singer whose powers have deteriorated over the years for a variety of reasons. In my opinion he, like many other pop 'singers,' has never been worth a damn live. He, like Keith, is a studio master, and knows exactly how to make the best use of his 'instrument' in a controlled setting ... but onstage whether he's moving or standing still, dude can't sing. Not a knock on him, and not even something he'd necessarily dispute himself.

Just for the hell of it, a couple of nights ago I listened to like 8 different official live versions of "Jumpin Jack Flash," starting with Ya-Ya's and concluding with the unlistenable Havana Moon. With the sole exception of MSG in '69 (when the groove is slow enough to allow Mick to actually wrap his v-cords around the melody and, heaven forbid, hold notes, the song is rendered over the years in a collection of shouts, grunts, growls, and slurs, that really only provide the barest representation of the tune itself.

I'm looking fwd to checking out the things that DP and riffie suggest above; I'd like to be disabused of the notion that modern-day live Jagger is unpalatable.

It's been downhill since after the first bridge in JFF from Rock'n'Roll Circus...

PS: He doesn't hold notes on the MSG 69-version. He's actually talking his way through the bridge

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stone4ever

I heard him sing two tracks from Blue And lonesome live on the last tour, he sounded nothing like he did in the studio.

If that's the criterion - to sing live like in a record - Jagger never has been able to sing, or have been 'cheating' in the studio since the day one. . I am still waiting the day when he could deliver "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Satisfaction" or "Angie" or "Paint It Black" or "Gimme Shelter" live as I have heard him doing in an original recording, and he's been trying that for over 50 years.. Some cool versions along the years, but still not matching with those unique originals...

- Doxa

Totally agree with the statement bolded above. The myth is that Mick was once a great singer whose powers have deteriorated over the years for a variety of reasons. In my opinion he, like many other pop 'singers,' has never been worth a damn live. He, like Keith, is a studio master, and knows exactly how to make the best use of his 'instrument' in a controlled setting ... but onstage whether he's moving or standing still, dude can't sing. Not a knock on him, and not even something he'd necessarily dispute himself.

Just for the hell of it, a couple of nights ago I listened to like 8 different official live versions of "Jumpin Jack Flash," starting with Ya-Ya's and concluding with the unlistenable Havana Moon. With the sole exception of MSG in '69 (when the groove is slow enough to allow Mick to actually wrap his v-cords around the melody and, heaven forbid, hold notes, the song is rendered over the years in a collection of shouts, grunts, growls, and slurs, that really only provide the barest representation of the tune itself.

I'm looking fwd to checking out the things that DP and riffie suggest above; I'd like to be disabused of the notion that modern-day live Jagger is unpalatable.

I kind of disagree with this last statement. IMO Jagger has had many years of a topnotch live singer. And he is not really a master of using his voice in the studio. He is smart, and a pro - he is going to use the tools available, sure. But we have learned that Jagger pretty much sings live in the studio. He very often sings along with the band. Every pro lead singer will go in and fix things up, and then of course stacking the voices, and the BU vocals etc. But I wouldnt call him a major user of effects, hiding behind them; I wouldnt think he pieces his final takes together by doing them line by line; or even word by word. I dont think he digitally adjusts his pitch.
He is a strong singer IMO, and has a good bit of weapons ad his disposal: a mimic, actor, decent range.
Live he moves around a lot; I think that used to be his main concession. But up through 73 he sang his ass off. The ballads (Love in Vain, Stray Cat, Angie, Fool ) were tops every performance. In 75 he went down a bit, but that was a head trip.
Now I do believe nowadays he is pretty lame. But it isn't about studio vs live. He is 74. IMO the big, big disappointment with Jagger is that he thinks he has to keep doing stadiums. So he needs to save his breath and stamina to such a degree that he literally barely vocalizes. It is Bernard and Lisa (or whoever it is now) who carry him. This is why we almost always end up with anonymous, bland vocals. I bet he can still deliver, in a wildly original way, if he was on a small stage, and no more running around, posing at 74, and Taylor Swifting. etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-08 02:18 by Palace Revolution 2000.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stone4ever

I heard him sing two tracks from Blue And lonesome live on the last tour, he sounded nothing like he did in the studio.

If that's the criterion - to sing live like in a record - Jagger never has been able to sing, or have been 'cheating' in the studio since the day one. . I am still waiting the day when he could deliver "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Satisfaction" or "Angie" or "Paint It Black" or "Gimme Shelter" live as I have heard him doing in an original recording, and he's been trying that for over 50 years.. Some cool versions along the years, but still not matching with those unique originals...

- Doxa

Totally agree with the statement bolded above. The myth is that Mick was once a great singer whose powers have deteriorated over the years for a variety of reasons. In my opinion he, like many other pop 'singers,' has never been worth a damn live. He, like Keith, is a studio master, and knows exactly how to make the best use of his 'instrument' in a controlled setting ... but onstage whether he's moving or standing still, dude can't sing. Not a knock on him, and not even something he'd necessarily dispute himself.

Just for the hell of it, a couple of nights ago I listened to like 8 different official live versions of "Jumpin Jack Flash," starting with Ya-Ya's and concluding with the unlistenable Havana Moon. With the sole exception of MSG in '69 (when the groove is slow enough to allow Mick to actually wrap his v-cords around the melody and, heaven forbid, hold notes, the song is rendered over the years in a collection of shouts, grunts, growls, and slurs, that really only provide the barest representation of the tune itself.

I'm looking fwd to checking out the things that DP and riffie suggest above; I'd like to be disabused of the notion that modern-day live Jagger is unpalatable.

It's been downhill since after the first bridge in JFF from Rock'n'Roll Circus...

PS: He doesn't hold notes on the MSG 69-version. He's actually talking his way through the bridge

Forgive my ignorance in advance but what is the bridge in "JJF"? Isn't it just three verses (the first two of which are two lines and last of which is four lines) and three choruses? There's an instrumental bridge-like passage between what I think of the 2nd chorus and the 3rd verse ... but nothing Mick sings on. To quote Robert Plant, "where's that confounded bridge?"

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stone4ever

I heard him sing two tracks from Blue And lonesome live on the last tour, he sounded nothing like he did in the studio.

If that's the criterion - to sing live like in a record - Jagger never has been able to sing, or have been 'cheating' in the studio since the day one. . I am still waiting the day when he could deliver "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Satisfaction" or "Angie" or "Paint It Black" or "Gimme Shelter" live as I have heard him doing in an original recording, and he's been trying that for over 50 years.. Some cool versions along the years, but still not matching with those unique originals...

- Doxa

Totally agree with the statement bolded above. The myth is that Mick was once a great singer whose powers have deteriorated over the years for a variety of reasons. In my opinion he, like many other pop 'singers,' has never been worth a damn live. He, like Keith, is a studio master, and knows exactly how to make the best use of his 'instrument' in a controlled setting ... but onstage whether he's moving or standing still, dude can't sing. Not a knock on him, and not even something he'd necessarily dispute himself.

Just for the hell of it, a couple of nights ago I listened to like 8 different official live versions of "Jumpin Jack Flash," starting with Ya-Ya's and concluding with the unlistenable Havana Moon. With the sole exception of MSG in '69 (when the groove is slow enough to allow Mick to actually wrap his v-cords around the melody and, heaven forbid, hold notes, the song is rendered over the years in a collection of shouts, grunts, growls, and slurs, that really only provide the barest representation of the tune itself.

I'm looking fwd to checking out the things that DP and riffie suggest above; I'd like to be disabused of the notion that modern-day live Jagger is unpalatable.

I kind of disagree with this last statement. IMO Jagger has had many years of a topnotch live singer. And he is not really a master of using his voice in the studio. He is smart, and a pro - he is going to use the tools available, sure. But we have learned that Jagger pretty much songs live in the studio. He very often songs along with the band. Every pro lead singer will go in and fix things up, and then of course stacking the voices, and the BU vocals etc. But I wouldnt call him a major user of effects, hiding behind them; I wouldnt think he pieces his final takes together by doing them line by line; or even word by word. I dont think he digitally adjusts his pitch.
He is a strong singer IMO, and has a good bit of weapons ad his disposal: a mimic, actor, decent range.
Live he moves around a lot; I think that used to be his main concession. But up through 73 he sang his ass off. The ballads (Love in Vain, Stray Cat, Angie, Fool ) were tops every performance. In 75 he went down a bit, but that was a head trip.
Now I do believe nowadays he is pretty lame. But it isn't about studio vs live. He is 74. IMO the big, big disappointment with Jagger is that he thinks he has to keep doing stadiums. So he needs to save his breath and stamina to such a degree that he literally barely vocalizes. It is Bernard and Lisa (or whoever it is now) who carry him. This is why we almost always end up with anonymous, bland vocals. I bet he can still deliver, in a wildly original way, if he was on a small stage, and no more running around, posing at 74, and Taylor Swifting. etc.

Could not have put it better myself.

Some people are satisfied in experiencing the Jagger image in concert vs. actually hearing his vocals, and it seems Mick caters to that crowd - those who want image over substance - otherwise he would put more effort in to singing rather than dancing. And because of this, we really don't have a choice or the chance to hear him at his best - he's too busy being a showman. Even back in '81 when he was barking and shouting out lyrics - he was running from one stage extension to the other at full speed. Or climbing up cherry pickers.Had he stood still for five minutes, maybe the barking may have been closer to the studio versions. For the record though, I really liked those out of control '81 shows - they varied night by night and you never knew what you were going to get. Even Keith has a bad habit of posing the image - throwing his hands in the air mid riff as if the guitar will continue play itself. It's a cool pose maybe for some, but the music suffers, and it ends up looking really silly imo. He seemingly has reeled a lot of that in as seen at Desert Trip, and he's mostly standing in the shadows of Mick's stage antics in recent years. His playing is no longer top notch by any means no matter how much he focuses, so it takes every bit of concentration possible - there's really not much time for wild guitar hero poses anymore when you can barely play a riff to begin with. Maybe part of the reason he's way in the background on B&L - he no longer has the chops to even play a decent blues solo. As it stands, Mick has Bernard to cover for him, and Keith has Chuck and Ronnie watching his back...all of this adds up to being a shadow of the glory days. Glad they're still rolling, but father time has been catching up with them for some time now.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
stone4ever
This shows that Mick still has it, more of this please Mick
singing like he means it , keith even congratulates him at the end.

[www.youtube.com]

I guess that's ok ... on the off-chance you'd like to hear how that song should be sung:

Mr Otis Redding

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to recent versions of WH and Angie and tell me why his singing isn't great on those numbers.

I was skeptical but after having pulled up a half-dozen or so live versions of these from '15 and '16 ... well, I wouldn't call the singing "great," but it's not half bad. And by a country mile it's better than his performance on nearly all the up-tempo numbers in recent years. Good on ya, Mickie.

Quote
Hairball
Some people are satisfied in experiencing the Jagger image in concert vs. actually hearing his vocals, and it seems Mick caters to that crowd - those who want image over substance - otherwise he would put more effort in to singing rather than dancing. And because of this, we really don't have a choice or the chance to hear him at his best - he's too busy being a showman. Even back in '81 when he was barking and shouting out lyrics - he was running from one stage extension to the other at full speed. Or climbing up cherry pickers.Had he stood still for five minutes, maybe the barking may have been closer to the studio versions. For the record though, I really liked those out of control '81 shows - they varied night by night and you never knew what you were going to get. Even Keith has a bad habit of posing the image - throwing his hands in the air mid riff as if the guitar will continue play itself. It's a cool pose maybe for some, but the music suffers, and it ends up looking really silly imo. He seemingly has reeled a lot of that in as seen at Desert Trip, and he's mostly standing in the shadows of Mick's stage antics in recent years. His playing is no longer top notch by any means no matter how much he focuses, so it takes every bit of concentration possible - there's really not much time for wild guitar hero poses anymore when you can barely play a riff to begin with. Maybe part of the reason he's way in the background on B&L - he no longer has the chops to even play a decent blues solo. As it stands, Mick has Bernard to cover for him, and Keith has Chuck and Ronnie watching his back...all of this adds up to being a shadow of the glory days. Glad they're still rolling, but father time has been catching up with them for some time now.

Right on Hair ball. That is summing it up in a sentence:"Some people are satisfied exp. the image vs actual singing"

Scheduled to be released on July 21, 2017
[www.hmv.co.jp]

If rock singers were expected to actually sing, they'd teach rock singing the way they teach opera singing.

If rock musicians were expected to actually play, then every other third garage in 1960s suburban U.S. would have been a music conservatory.

If every rock band were expected to be accomplished note-perfect musicians, then every rock band would sound like TOTO.

I'd rather it were all about Beatles, Kinks, Stones, Ramones, Sex Pistols, etc. -- a bunch of happy, spirited accidents that created excitement, dynamics, who gelled as human beings and who had something unique to say and express.

If I want to hear note perfect singing, I can dress up and go see a Mozart opera.

Mick should never have taken vocal coaching and learned to "sing" -- in taking on technique, the trade-off is loss of spirit.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to recent versions of WH and Angie and tell me why his singing isn't great on those numbers.

I was skeptical but after having pulled up a half-dozen or so live versions of these from '15 and '16 ... well, I wouldn't call the singing "great," but it's not half bad. And by a country mile it's better than his performance on nearly all the up-tempo numbers in recent years. Good on ya, Mickie.

When YOU put it like that, it must be great

Quote
stonehearted
If rock singers were expected to actually sing, they'd teach rock singing the way they teach opera singing.

If rock musicians were expected to actually play, then every other third garage in 1960s suburban U.S. would have been a music conservatory.

If every rock band were expected to be accomplished note-perfect musicians, then every rock band would sound like TOTO.

I'd rather it were all about Beatles, Kinks, Stones, Ramones, Sex Pistols, etc. -- a bunch of happy, spirited accidents that created excitement, dynamics, who gelled as human beings and who had something unique to say and express.

If I want to hear note perfect singing, I can dress up and go see a Mozart opera.

Mick should never have taken vocal coaching and learned to "sing" -- in taking on technique, the trade-off is loss of spirit.

BRILLIANT POST MY FRIEND

Finally some myths about Mick are being dispelled, Keith dispelled one lol and a few more have been dispelled on this very thread.
We now know that apart from a few ballads he can't or won't sing like a rock star these days, he has had an awful solo career when it comes to sucess(he can't make much money without Keith) and jogging from one side of the stage to the other doesn't constitute a great performance.
He us capable of much better imho.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-08 15:20 by stone4ever.

Quote
stone4ever
Finally some myths about Mick are being dispelled, Keith dispelled one lol and a few more have been dispelled on this very thread.
We now know that apart from a few ballads he can't or won't sing like a rock star these days, he has had an awful solo career when it comes to sucess(he can't make much money without Keith) and jogging from one side of the stage to the other doesn't constitute a great performance.
He us capable of much better imho.

Finally some myths dispelled? You probably haven't much read IORR during the last two decades haha...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-08 15:34 by Doxa.

Quote
stonehearted
If rock singers were expected to actually sing, they'd teach rock singing the way they teach opera singing.

If rock musicians were expected to actually play, then every other third garage in 1960s suburban U.S. would have been a music conservatory.

If every rock band were expected to be accomplished note-perfect musicians, then every rock band would sound like TOTO.

I'd rather it were all about Beatles, Kinks, Stones, Ramones, Sex Pistols, etc. -- a bunch of happy, spirited accidents that created excitement, dynamics, who gelled as human beings and who had something unique to say and express.

If I want to hear note perfect singing, I can dress up and go see a Mozart opera.

Mick should never have taken vocal coaching and learned to "sing" -- in taking on technique, the trade-off is loss of spirit.

Two reactions:

1) You don't really need to "dress up" to go see Mozart anymore; in fact, if you cosplay as your favorite anime character some halls will give you discounted admission to things like Cosi Fan Tutti, and

2) I don't think the spirit of the discussion was 'trained' singers vs. less 'note-perfect' singers. For example, Van Morrison, Al Green, and Carl Wilson are examples of people who can just flat-out sing. They don't sound studied or stilted and they have created some of the best pop music of our times ... largely because their voices are irresistible, fluid, natural instruments. Mick doesn't have one of those instruments. As I said in one of my earlier posts he has that in common with the vast majority of pop singers.

Quote
stone4ever
Finally some myths about Mick are being dispelled, Keith dispelled one lol and a few more have been dispelled on this very thread.
We now know that apart from a few ballads he can't or won't sing like a rock star these days, he has had an awful solo career when it comes to sucess(he can't make much money without Keith) and jogging from one side of the stage to the other doesn't constitute a great performance.
He us capable of much better imho.

I don't know, riffie. I take a back seat to no one in pointing out the flaws of modern-day Stones ... but one thing I don't think you can argue is that Mick doesn't still deliver what most people think of as a 'great performance." We may see the cracks in his facade, the stilted vocal mannerisms, the even-more-stilted and ultra-rehearsed calisthenics. But at the end of the day, that dude puts asses in seats all around the world at a rate that defies belief. I know, I know, people are coming to their shows for all sorts of reasons. But, at the end of the day, for the non-fan sitting in a luxury box or the casual fan brought along by a friend, Mick Jagger IS the Stones and he remains one of the biggest draws in pop music.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
stone4ever
Finally some myths about Mick are being dispelled, Keith dispelled one lol and a few more have been dispelled on this very thread.
We now know that apart from a few ballads he can't or won't sing like a rock star these days, he has had an awful solo career when it comes to sucess(he can't make much money without Keith) and jogging from one side of the stage to the other doesn't constitute a great performance.
He us capable of much better imho.

I don't know, riffie. I take a back seat to no one in pointing out the flaws of modern-day Stones ... but one thing I don't think you can argue is that Mick doesn't still deliver what most people think of as a 'great performance." We may see the cracks in his facade, the stilted vocal mannerisms, the even-more-stilted and ultra-rehearsed calisthenics. But at the end of the day, that dude puts asses in seats all around the world at a rate that defies belief. I know, I know, people are coming to their shows for all sorts of reasons. But, at the end of the day, for the non-fan sitting in a luxury box or the casual fan brought along by a friend, Mick Jagger IS the Stones and he remains one of the biggest draws in pop music.

LB i love ya, your the sharpest razor in the hood, but you're missing the point here.
Its the Stones man, it's the music, the spectacle the whole thing, i know that. What I'm saying is he would sell just as many tickets if he stayed at the mic stand a little more and concentrated on the singing a little more. He has the moves, he's the coolest cat in the world, he doesn't need to prove to the world he is still fit all the time, the music suffers as a result.

I remember this girl once showing an album cover, think it was a promo or an Australian release and it had a picture of a girl in a bikini with bruising all over her body saying " The Rolling Stones made me black and blue and I love it. The girl showing this album cover to reporters says, well you know this album would sell just as well with Mick's face on it.
That's the point I'm trying to make.

Social media and retail listings for the 12" single suddenly appeared out of the blue. There's been no press release from Mick or Universal yet. Why are we so certain this is just a single and that a new solo album isn't following in its wake? Soldatti didn't see this one coming. No one did unless others see hints in posts suggesting otherwise.

About 10 years ago, Dave Stewart was out promoting his Songbook where he performed his favorite songs he'd written or co-written over the years. During one of the interviews, he played a track called "Time Flies" described as a soul song with Mick backed by a gospel choir. The interviewer thought it was terrific and asked why it wasn't released. Dave said because of The Stones, Mick only makes one solo album each decade though he has dozens of finished tracks in reserve. Dave claimed he told Mick he should release them all at once online and promote it as "Get Off On My Cloud." It is entirely possible for Mick to pull together a new solo album for Universal without it leaking to the media. I'd imagine a press release is coming soon that will clarify all.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Social media and retail listings for the 12" single suddenly appeared out of the blue. There's been no press release from Mick or Universal yet. Why are we so certain this is just a single and that a new solo album isn't following in its wake? Soldatti didn't see this one coming. No one did unless others see hints in posts suggesting otherwise.

About 10 years ago, Dave Stewart was out promoting his Songbook where he performed his favorite songs he'd written or co-written over the years. During one of the interviews, he played a track called "Time Flies" described as a soul song with Mick backed by a gospel choir. The interviewer thought it was terrific and asked why it wasn't released. Dave said because of The Stones, Mick only makes one solo album each decade though he has dozens of finished tracks in reserve. Dave claimed he told Mick he should release them all at once online and promote it as "Get Off On My Cloud." It is entirely possible for Mick to pull together a new solo album for Universal without it leaking to the media. I'd imagine a press release is coming soon that will clarify all.

Is anyone certain that it's only a single? I WISH it were only a single ... but I'd be shocked if it weren't the run-up to a solo album.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
stone4ever
Finally some myths about Mick are being dispelled, Keith dispelled one lol and a few more have been dispelled on this very thread.
We now know that apart from a few ballads he can't or won't sing like a rock star these days, he has had an awful solo career when it comes to sucess(he can't make much money without Keith) and jogging from one side of the stage to the other doesn't constitute a great performance.
He us capable of much better imho.

I don't know, riffie. I take a back seat to no one in pointing out the flaws of modern-day Stones ... but one thing I don't think you can argue is that Mick doesn't still deliver what most people think of as a 'great performance." We may see the cracks in his facade, the stilted vocal mannerisms, the even-more-stilted and ultra-rehearsed calisthenics. But at the end of the day, that dude puts asses in seats all around the world at a rate that defies belief. I know, I know, people are coming to their shows for all sorts of reasons. But, at the end of the day, for the non-fan sitting in a luxury box or the casual fan brought along by a friend, Mick Jagger IS the Stones and he remains one of the biggest draws in pop music.

LB i love ya, your the sharpest razor in the hood, but you're missing the point here.
Its the Stones man, it's the music, the spectacle the whole thing, i know that. What I'm saying is he would sell just as many tickets if he stayed at the mic stand a little more and concentrated on the singing a little more. He has the moves, he's the coolest cat in the world, he doesn't need to prove to the world he is still fit all the time, the music suffers as a result.

I remember this girl once showing an album cover, think it was a promo or an Australian release and it had a picture of a girl in a bikini with bruising all over her body saying " The Rolling Stones made me black and blue and I love it. The girl showing this album cover to reporters says, well you know this album would sell just as well with Mick's face on it.
That's the point I'm trying to make.

Yeah I got that, riffie. But two things:

1) You're suggesting that you know better than Mick what would put more bodies into stadiums around the world at exorbitant prices. As much as his 'creative' or 'artistic' muses might be flagging, it's a tough argument to make that he doesn't understand how to maximize his revenue. Would 'standing still' and singing 'better' please more of the people at the shows today? I honestly have no idea, but kind of doubt that most people today care about much more than spectacle and movement and lights and nostalgia.

2) There's a little bit of chicken-and-the-egg going on here: which would sell better, a politically incorrect bruised-by-the-Stones near-naked girl or a picture of Mick? Aren't theyt just different sides of the same coin, in a sense, from a marketing perspective? Who can tell which is more 'effective,' really?

There will be soon an early Stones stuff issue, then a new studio album and a live album too...Do you really want a Mick solo album out?!?

Look at it this way. Mick turns 75 next year. Let's say he's written enough material for a new Stones CD and another solo album. He wants to release these songs before he's done. For several years, he's been writing songs and saying some were for the Stones and some he might do on his own. If, in looking at the end of a career that spanned more than half a century, he decides what should be his final musical statement of his recording career - the solo album or the Stones album - he decides release the solo album this year and save the Stones album for next year when it all finally winds down. Can we blame him?

I believe the Stones album is in the can as far as substantially complete. It doesn't matter if they still add parts, re-cut tracks, tinker with it. I believe this album was approached differently as I heard with tracks being finished (potentially) before others were worked on. I know this goes against the grain of how to record, but they're near the end of their careers. They're not likely to leave behind tracks that can't ever be finished if mortality should intervene. They want their final statements. If Mick has 40 songs or so and that means a solo album and a Stones album, let the solo album come first. Let the Stones be his Last Musical Testament.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-08 18:22 by Rocky Dijon.

That makes sense, Rocky.

No matter how blase Jagger comes off about the larger questions, I can not imagine that he is not pondering these points, that Rocky brought up. It has been quite a career, and these will most likely be the final stamp.
I mean, what Bowie did still rattles me.

An album takes either a load of promotion or a gimmick. Unless Mick fits in a lot of time, a solo album will probably be ignored by the public and given the stink eye by the media, as it doesn't really have a raison d'etre. The Brexit single can stand on its own, and be publicized as such, and not carry a lot of pressure to succeed. I don't have any actual info, just my guess.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stone4ever

I heard him sing two tracks from Blue And lonesome live on the last tour, he sounded nothing like he did in the studio.

If that's the criterion - to sing live like in a record - Jagger never has been able to sing, or have been 'cheating' in the studio since the day one. . I am still waiting the day when he could deliver "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Satisfaction" or "Angie" or "Paint It Black" or "Gimme Shelter" live as I have heard him doing in an original recording, and he's been trying that for over 50 years.. Some cool versions along the years, but still not matching with those unique originals...

- Doxa

Totally agree with the statement bolded above. The myth is that Mick was once a great singer whose powers have deteriorated over the years for a variety of reasons. In my opinion he, like many other pop 'singers,' has never been worth a damn live. He, like Keith, is a studio master, and knows exactly how to make the best use of his 'instrument' in a controlled setting ... but onstage whether he's moving or standing still, dude can't sing. Not a knock on him, and not even something he'd necessarily dispute himself.

Just for the hell of it, a couple of nights ago I listened to like 8 different official live versions of "Jumpin Jack Flash," starting with Ya-Ya's and concluding with the unlistenable Havana Moon. With the sole exception of MSG in '69 (when the groove is slow enough to allow Mick to actually wrap his v-cords around the melody and, heaven forbid, hold notes, the song is rendered over the years in a collection of shouts, grunts, growls, and slurs, that really only provide the barest representation of the tune itself.

I'm looking fwd to checking out the things that DP and riffie suggest above; I'd like to be disabused of the notion that modern-day live Jagger is unpalatable.

It's been downhill since after the first bridge in JFF from Rock'n'Roll Circus...

PS: He doesn't hold notes on the MSG 69-version. He's actually talking his way through the bridge

Jumpin' Jack Flash does not have a bridge. It's verse and chorus. That's it!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stone4ever

I heard him sing two tracks from Blue And lonesome live on the last tour, he sounded nothing like he did in the studio.

If that's the criterion - to sing live like in a record - Jagger never has been able to sing, or have been 'cheating' in the studio since the day one. . I am still waiting the day when he could deliver "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Satisfaction" or "Angie" or "Paint It Black" or "Gimme Shelter" live as I have heard him doing in an original recording, and he's been trying that for over 50 years.. Some cool versions along the years, but still not matching with those unique originals...

- Doxa

Totally agree with the statement bolded above. The myth is that Mick was once a great singer whose powers have deteriorated over the years for a variety of reasons. In my opinion he, like many other pop 'singers,' has never been worth a damn live. He, like Keith, is a studio master, and knows exactly how to make the best use of his 'instrument' in a controlled setting ... but onstage whether he's moving or standing still, dude can't sing. Not a knock on him, and not even something he'd necessarily dispute himself.

Just for the hell of it, a couple of nights ago I listened to like 8 different official live versions of "Jumpin Jack Flash," starting with Ya-Ya's and concluding with the unlistenable Havana Moon. With the sole exception of MSG in '69 (when the groove is slow enough to allow Mick to actually wrap his v-cords around the melody and, heaven forbid, hold notes, the song is rendered over the years in a collection of shouts, grunts, growls, and slurs, that really only provide the barest representation of the tune itself.

I'm looking fwd to checking out the things that DP and riffie suggest above; I'd like to be disabused of the notion that modern-day live Jagger is unpalatable.

It's been downhill since after the first bridge in JFF from Rock'n'Roll Circus...

PS: He doesn't hold notes on the MSG 69-version. He's actually talking his way through the bridge

Jumpin' Jack Flash does not have a bridge. It's verse and chorus. That's it!

Technically, yes.

One may say that the "Jumping Jack Flash, it's a gaz"-part is a third part of the song, though..

Hmmmm. I may be getting into semantics now, or just finding different ways of describing the same thing... but I still say Mick is one hell of a singer if you look at his whole career. Granted, what he does is limited compared to other artists, but within that I think he's done some amazing things in and out of the studio. I'm just talking about his vocals, not being a front man which is another topic. Singing-wise he found what he was good at it and went with it. Also, I think its a pretty common thing for a lot of singers to not be able to re create everything they did in the studio. Over the years he's gotten more nasally, maybe a little too polished, and has had voice problems. Everyone gets old. Its a fact of life.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-09 22:50 by ryanpow.

Quote
ryanpow
Hmmmm. I may be getting into semantics now, or just finding different ways of describing the same thing... but I still say Mick is one hell of a singer if you look at his whole career. Granted, what he does is limited compared to other artists, but within that I think he's done some amazing things in and out of the studio. I'm just talking about his vocals, not being a front man which is another topic. Singing-wise he found what he was good at it and went with it. Also, I think its a pretty common thing for a lot of singers to not be able to re create everything they did in the studio. Over the years he's gotten more nasally, maybe a little too polished, and has had voice problems. Everyone gets old. Its a fact of life.

Yes of course as we get older things like voices diminish in some people and no one is bashing Mick for that. He does a good job with what he has, although he could possibly do more with that voice in a live setting in ways already mentioned above.
I think what's being suggested here is that it's a bit of a myth that Mick ever had a particularly great voice. We the fans love him singing just as Bob Dylan fan's love him singing, but its the denial factor of some of the cheer leading that provokes this sort of negative conversation about Mick's voice. You might love that voice but is it really the voice that's so great or is it the music. I have seen many cover bands of the Stones and they always go down great with the audience, it's the music itself that they love.
Perhaps Mick feels the need to be the showman to make up for that voice, who knows. Its a voice that has gone through so many changes, the voice we hear from the 70's is almost unrecognizable from the 60's and again in the 80's, does Start Me Up Live sound anything like the recording ?? I think not, and in this respect i would lean towards agreeing with posters that mention trickery being used in the studio setting. I'm no expert but even in the 60's live footage of him singing Under My Thumb or Satisfaction doesn't measure up to recordings.