I love them both. My two favorite singers in my two favorite bands. But if I had to pick I'd go with Jagger by a nose (a lip?). He is THE prototypical hard rock singer. And very versatile - ballads, blues, country influences, etc.

Also, gotta agree with others on this board that Mighty Rearranger is awesome from start to finish. Definitely better than A Bigger Bang, and I like ABB a lot. Even McCartney's new album is pretty good. Neil Young's too. Geezer power!

You say you like the way Robert Plant is singting ballads better than how Mick Jagger does it. So may be it is as simple as the fact that you are a bigger fan of Robert Plant than of Mick Jagger?



Bjornulf

or just someone who think's Plant sings better ballads than Jagger ?

It's pretty simple actually. If you disagree and think somebody is totally wrong, don't tell that to the person. You could just walk away and nobody gets hurt and you might call it a draw. Just walk away 'cause life is too short to be wasted on unimportant matters. Go watch another sit-com on the telly and have few beers instead.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There simply is no better rock singer than Mick
> Jagger.
>
'nuff said.

Interesting question.


Much prefer Plant's solo material rather than Led Zeppelin. Meanwhile, Plant's solo stuff is stronger than Mick's.

However in comparing both lead singer's contribution to their respective bands, it's Mick by a landslide.

They're so different as bands that the comparison is impossible.

Page, Bonham and Jones were near-virtuosos at their respective instruments. They could all solo independently, yet still gelled as an amazingly tight band. The Stones on the other hand were more than the sum of their parts.

Personally, I think Page's electric skills are a bit overrated. Great riffs, no doubt, but often sloppy solos. His acoustic work and production skills are brilliant though.

At one time, Plant could do things with his voice that Mick could never do, but technical ability is only part of the equation. Mick simply has a more pleasing voice to my ears, and his voice has aged much better than Plant's.

rock'nroller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question remains, is it that Robert Plant is a
> better rock singer than Mick Jagger; or that the
> Led Zep ensemble was stronger than the Stones?

I absolutely don't agree with you. The Stones are a better band and Jagger is the ultimate rock singer. Don't get me wrong, I think Led Zeppelin is great. But the Stones are the ultimate rock band!

ARE YOU KIDDIN BOYS???!!

it's the same thing to say: BRITNEY SPEARS VS KEITH RICHARDS


MICKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

farawayeyes2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's the same thing to say: BRITNEY SPEARS VS
> KEITH RICHARDS
>

Well, not so. Both were the lead singers of perhaps the two greatest rock bands ever...

I prefer Mick, anyway. Plant reached higher notes, so to tell, but I stay with Mick.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

WELL i was jokin, like ledzep, they were a great band, especially live. but i never like band with just one guitar player, who always does solos and never play thinkin of be in a BAND: keith do that, that's one of the reasons why i love him, Ronnie do that, that's why i don't prefer taylor to him!
speakin of jagger, i love the way he sings, he turns every song into a special song. he also dances muck better than Plant, he writes better songs and is also very nice everytime he speaks!

wa watching the norwegian mandela Aids show from last summer on my telly today, and it occurred t me, that i respect the way plant ages resepectfully. He dos not fight age like mick does, he adabts to it.

best
Dýri

I shouls say that page & plant tour in 1996 was great. They gave all they had in musical terms, the even did jams. Both Plant & Jagger are really good singers and showmans. They know how to get the audience.