For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
timbernardis
tyler is no Jagger, period. Never has been.
plexi
Quote
stone4everQuote
timbernardis
tyler is no Jagger, period. Never has been.
plexi
Vocally he is in a completely higher league to Jagger, no comparrison.
Cool moves and stage clothes again, in another league.
What Steve Tyler doesn't have is Keith to co write with and that put's Mick in a higher league
My ultimate band would have Tyler on vocal , Keith and Taylor on guitar.
Quote
stone4everQuote
timbernardis
tyler is no Jagger, period. Never has been.
plexi
Vocally he is in a completely higher league to Jagger, no comparrison.
Cool moves and stage clothes again, in another league.
What Steve Tyler doesn't have is Keith to co write with and that put's Mick in a higher league
My ultimate band would have Tyler on vocal , Keith and Taylor on guitar.
Quote
BowieStoneQuote
stone4everQuote
timbernardis
tyler is no Jagger, period. Never has been.
plexi
Vocally he is in a completely higher league to Jagger, no comparrison.
Cool moves and stage clothes again, in another league.
What Steve Tyler doesn't have is Keith to co write with and that put's Mick in a higher league
My ultimate band would have Tyler on vocal , Keith and Taylor on guitar.
Wow.
That really doesn't make any sense. Even if it does it's completely incorrect.
Quote
NateQuote
stone4everQuote
timbernardis
tyler is no Jagger, period. Never has been.
plexi
Vocally he is in a completely higher league to Jagger, no comparrison.
Cool moves and stage clothes again, in another league.
What Steve Tyler doesn't have is Keith to co write with and that put's Mick in a higher league
My ultimate band would have Tyler on vocal , Keith and Taylor on guitar.
You are very funny
Nate
And Chris Robinson is way better a singer than Steven Tyler!Quote
stone4everQuote
NateQuote
stone4everQuote
timbernardis
tyler is no Jagger, period. Never has been.
plexi
Vocally he is in a completely higher league to Jagger, no comparrison.
Cool moves and stage clothes again, in another league.
What Steve Tyler doesn't have is Keith to co write with and that put's Mick in a higher league
My ultimate band would have Tyler on vocal , Keith and Taylor on guitar.
You are very funny
Nate
Thank you.
Quote
geordiestoneAnd Chris Robinson is way better a singer than Steven Tyler!Quote
stone4everQuote
NateQuote
stone4everQuote
timbernardis
tyler is no Jagger, period. Never has been.
plexi
Vocally he is in a completely higher league to Jagger, no comparrison.
Cool moves and stage clothes again, in another league.
What Steve Tyler doesn't have is Keith to co write with and that put's Mick in a higher league
My ultimate band would have Tyler on vocal , Keith and Taylor on guitar.
You are very funny
Nate
Thank you.
Quote
stone4everQuote
geordiestoneAnd Chris Robinson is way better a singer than Steven Tyler!Quote
stone4everQuote
NateQuote
stone4everQuote
timbernardis
tyler is no Jagger, period. Never has been.
plexi
Vocally he is in a completely higher league to Jagger, no comparrison.
Cool moves and stage clothes again, in another league.
What Steve Tyler doesn't have is Keith to co write with and that put's Mick in a higher league
My ultimate band would have Tyler on vocal , Keith and Taylor on guitar.
You are very funny
Nate
Thank you.
Now that guy can sing. You can't say it on here but Jagger really isn't much of a singer these days, i'm not sure that he ever was that great a singer.
My ultimate band can have Chris Robinson on backing vocals if you like
No they're all dead skinny.Quote
Testify
Mick Jagger
Keith Richards
Ronnie Wood
Charlie Watts
The world's largest rock n roll band! This is not an opinion, but it is a fact!
Quote
geordiestoneNo they're all dead skinny.Quote
Testify
Mick Jagger
Keith Richards
Ronnie Wood
Charlie Watts
The world's largest rock n roll band! This is not an opinion, but it is a fact!
Quote
stone4ever
Well why charge so much for tickets if he is holding back saving his voice. It's ridiculous to think Mick is above criticism . If the Stones are well past their sell by date they set themselves up for criticism by charging so much to see them. Let's face it, most of us watch the live shows from a big screen, I at least expect to hear his voice for £300. Hold back my arse. I haven't liked Mick's voice on an album since TATTOO You. Too high in the mix as has been agreed on IORR by many posters . As for Let It Loose he has strangely never attempted to sing it live. He knows he can't.
Well, then go and see Aerosmith if you want to. I'm still happy to be able to see the Stones on their upcoming tour. For me it still sounds great even without screaming. His voice is still strong and at a loud concert it doesn't make much of a difference if a singer is screaming his lungs out or singing more in a safe range.Quote
stone4ever
Well why charge so much for tickets if he is holding back saving his voice. It's ridiculous to think Mick is above criticism . If the Stones are well past their sell by date they set themselves up for criticism by charging so much to see them. Let's face it, most of us watch the live shows from a big screen, I at least expect to hear his voice for £300. Hold back my arse. I haven't liked Mick's voice on an album since TATTOO You. Too high in the mix as has been agreed on IORR by many posters . As for Let It Loose he has strangely never attempted to sing it live. He knows he can't.
Quote
stone4ever
Well guys I don't think I have to prove myself to you to show how much a fan I have been of this band for over 35 years. If you have been following iorr closely you would understand that it's of the opinion of many posters that Keiths playing abilities and Mick’s voice have been in decline. That's OK, that's excepted, they are old men. What isn't exceptable is charging extortionate amounts of money for tickets to see a band well past its prime. Am i the only one on this forum who finds it hard to justify the expense of seeing them play live.
The other thing, I don't need you or anyone else to tell me that if I liked Aerosmith live the other night and was blown away with Mr Tyler's blistering full on vocals that I am posting on the wrong forum. I love all kinds of singers, although the Stones will always be tops for me as a complete band and as song writers , there are so many more talented singers out there. Mick Jagger comes in at about number 20 on my list of greatest singers.
Quote
Nate
The Stones are not the inland revenue if you don't want to pay the money to see them play then you don't have to.
Nate
Do yourself a favour and get a ticket for a show of the upcoming tour, if you are that much of a Stones fan then you will not regret seeing them one last time.Quote
stone4ever
I think you are missing the point here.
It's the greed of this band that comes into question. I think it's a relevant discussion on this thread. Do the Stones deliver value for money. They certainly did when I saw them in 90' 95' 03'. In 07' not so much. In 07 I felt very dissatisfied with the performance and the value for money.
Mick saving his voice, I mean come on !! Half a dozen shows a year and he needs to hold back. It's like give it up man.
You are correct, i don't have to pay to see this band and I haven't since 07'
Now if the ticket price was a hundred pounds or something I might. I don't actually think that many real fans can afford to see this band live. I certainly can, I'm not short of money but I refuse to make Mick and the boys more millions with under par performances, it's the principle. The last time i saw them live I felt like a jerk, I felt like I had been had. I'm pleased to say they upped their game after 07' and I wish I had seen some of their anniversary shows. But man did they sell out the last time out, that was me finished.
Quote
stone4everQuote
Nate
The Stones are not the inland revenue if you don't want to pay the money to see them play then you don't have to.
Nate
I think you are missing the point here.
It's the greed of this band that comes into question. I think it's a relevant discussion on this thread. Do the Stones deliver value for money. They certainly did when I saw them in 90' 95' 03'. In 07' not so much. In 07 I felt very dissatisfied with the performance and the value for money.
Mick saving his voice, I mean come on !! Half a dozen shows a year and he needs to hold back. It's like give it up man.
You are correct, i don't have to pay to see this band and I haven't since 07'
Now if the ticket price was a hundred pounds or something I might. I don't actually think that many real fans can afford to see this band live. I certainly can, I'm not short of money but I refuse to make Mick and the boys more millions with under par performances, it's the principle. The last time i saw them live I felt like a jerk, I felt like I had been had. I'm pleased to say they upped their game after 07' and I wish I had seen some of their anniversary shows. But man did they sell out the last time out, that was me finished.[/
I just think it's pointless complaining about the ticket prices.
I would like to take a private jet when traveling to the shows check into a five star hotel eat in a three star Michelin restaurant and have five bisexual supermodels back to my room after the show.
Who do I complain to about the price of the above experience
Nate
Quote
stone4ever
Mick Jagger comes in at about number 20 on my list of greatest singers.
Quote
Nate
There may be technically better singers but Jagger is a true global megastar he's got the whole package and some.The kind of talent that doesn't come around very often.
Make the most of this band whilst they are still around and realise how fortunate you are to be around at the same time as them.
Soon all any of us will have are the records,films,books and memories.
I doubt any of us will be seeing a band like this again in our lifetimes.
Nate
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
Nate
There may be technically better singers but Jagger is a true global megastar he's got the whole package and some.The kind of talent that doesn't come around very often.
Make the most of this band whilst they are still around and realise how fortunate you are to be around at the same time as them.
Soon all any of us will have are the records,films,books and memories.
I doubt any of us will be seeing a band like this again in our lifetimes.
Nate
I think one of the sub-texts here is that at least for some of us for whom the band has become a shadow of itself all we have NOW "are the records, films, books and memories."
I've always maintained it's possible to love what the band has done and to hate what they've become. There are writers and artists and actors whose early work has enthralled me ... and whose later stuff is eminently forgettable. Same with the Stones. Doesn't mean I don't think they are one of the greatest pop acts ever.