Say ferrante9, maybe you should go back to the McCartney fan forum.

What's wrong with liking some Macca? I'm the biggest Stones fan you'll ever come across but there are some Paul songs I dig. Mostly with the Beatles, but he's had a few decent solo tunes as well; "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Junior's Farm" - I think it actually stops there. But TONS of great songs with the Beatles. I don't care if they "rock" or not, their just good songs.

Now, he does not hold a candle to Mick Jagger. Mick is the greatest rock and roll performer that has ever lived and it will be a long time before someone takes his crown (if that day even ever comes). Mick's voice is still in strong shape. You can't expect him to sound like he did when he was in his 20's, but you can still easily tell it's Mick Jagger singing.

ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> macca isn't a singer??? isn't rock and roll???
>
> i can tell you ingornace.
>
> what do you call oh darling??? what do you call
> helter skelter???
>
>
> buffoon!!!!!!
>

hey darling be cool. i'll never say something offensive about other friends here in this forum. we're here to speak about music, to say our opinion, not to offend each other.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-20 17:31 by farawayeyes2.

Both of them are rock and roll legends,people who made it all happen.Without two of them we wouldn't have rock as it has been all these years.They revolutionised the music.
I think that Maca might be in slightly better shape than Mick but it really doesn't matter because both of them are still amazing.

well paul hardly dont move on stage,so it,s much easier to sing then.jagger,s working on stage is so much more,you can,t compare them.and paul mccartney is not rock and roll,pop is his trone

tell your deaf grandmother, but not us !!!!!

If we're talking purely voice i think McCartney's singing is considerably better.He has lost some of the 'lighter' aspects of his voice - it's now a little lower.On some songs it is noticeable eg Hello Goodbye, Fool On The Hill but on a number of other songs particularly the rockier song there's very little difference. He still does a great Little Richard and still sings whatever tempo of song with a great vitality.
Unfortunately i believe Mick at this period of his career is a long long way behind - just listen to his recent vocals on Sway - they're as flat as a pancake and he also tends to over accentuate badly at times.
Mick and The Stones will always be my favourite band - but lets be honest!

I think Micks voice is the only reason of listening to the new "Sway". The arrangement isnt good, but I was amazed how "young" his voice sounds. That he didnt stretch for the high notes is understandable. Mick sounds really good. A lot of the recordings from the 70s, for instance the "rare" tracks from Vancouver 1972, which is appropiate to compare to, isnt that good. The guitars were much better, and the mood were dangerous and irresistable, but the singing aint that good. Micks singing nowdays is the best part of the Rolling Stones´ sound.
(Hope that wasnt a boring post.)

Ah. . . once again, there's Mick Jagger's amazing ability to get as trashed on a Stones board as he would on an "impartial" board... Post this thread on a Macca board and you'd get torn a new @#$%& for even suggesting to compare Macca with Mick but on a Stones board... no. Everyone's desire to be as "objective" as possible (even if they are full of shit) evetually gets the 'Stone' as trashed (or more) as the 'other party'. And, Reptile, LOL, right on.

And the guy who said Macca is in better shape than Mick... oh boy.. Let me predict a "Bono is in better shape than Mick" as a thread that's bound to pop up soon...

Buffoon! Hahahahahahahaha! Who uses that word...

What? Is it 1965 again? Same old Beatles vs. Stones thing. Why compare 2 completely different (though both great) artists. Just enjoy 'em while you can.

LET'S FACE THE REALITY HERE.


I LOVE MICK AND THE STONES.

BUT MACCA IS IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT LEAGUE.

I SAW BOTH ACTS IN ANAHEIM, AND BY FAR MACCA ROCKED THE BEST..AND THE CROWD WAS MUCH INTO MACCA TOO.

THE WAY MACCA SANG HELTER SKELTER, IN THE SAME KEY AS THE ORIGINAL RECORDING, AND SURPASSING THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORDING LIVE...IT'S JUST AMAZING.

MICK CAN'T SING LIKE MACCA, AND WAS NEVER IN THE SAME LEAGUE.

MICK IS A PERFOMER LIKE ELVIS WAS, AND MICHAEL JACKSON.

MACCA IS A MUSICIAN.....MULTI TALENTED MUSICIAN, BEST SONG WRITER OF ALL TIME.

ELVIS WAS NO MUSICIAN, AND MICHAL JACKSON WAS NO MUSICIAN EITHER.

MICK IS THE SAME.

NOW, RON, CHARLIE, AND KEITH ARE MUSICIANS.......BUT NOT MICK.

Define 'musician', ferrante (and turn off your capslock)...

I just saw Paul, too (3rd time). In fact, 2 1/2 weeks before I saw the Stones (8th time). Yes, both are great, but very different.

Paul - great songwriter, singer, and player. Maybe the best songwriter of the past century.

Mick - the ultimate showman, underrated as a songwriter.

Apples vs. oranges

I like oranges today!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-20 21:52 by Elmo Lewis.

no......apple vs apples.

they both are in the same genre and same category.


both sing rock and roll.


mick is a good showman......because he dances weird....he can't dance, but because he dances all weird and funny, that's why people like it...including myself....and because he can get young chicks.....


macca is a good showman because he can play all instruments, he can sing...and people are amazaed by his talent. he could jsut sit there and play classical guitar for an hour and people would just go nuts.



mick is not a musician because he can't play shit.........he can't play any instrumetns well.

he is an above average songwriter, but an mediocre singer, but an excellent permorfmer. if mick didn't dance all weird, do you think the stones would be fun watching them live????

Ok, Ok, you're right. Go directly to the Macca board. There's nothing here for you.

Mick won't be caught dead singing such crap as "Honey Pie" or "When I'm 64". He might sing "Honey's Pie" or "When We 69".

Paul sings great when it comes to his thing.
But is sure as hell aint no rock ´n´roll.
Lennon was the r 'n' roll singer in his former band. Basta.

"MICK IS A PERFOMER LIKE ELVIS WAS, AND MICHAEL JACKSON.

MACCA IS A MUSICIAN.....MULTI TALENTED MUSICIAN, BEST SONG WRITER OF ALL TIME."

Comparing Macca and Elvis is pure blasfemy..... Elvis singing is without comparison much better than Macca....

"BUT MACCA IS IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT LEAGUE. "

Yes in a much lower league than Elvis....

If you say Macca sings better than Elvis, your musical knowledge is worse than I ever imagined...... sorry to say, I feel sorry for your musical understanding...

ferrante9, stop typing with capital letters and try to stay a little polite. If you want to be taken seriously, try typing without the capital letters, line breaks, stop's and comma's and decent English.

As for Michael Jackson: you obviously don't know, he recorded multiple songs with Michael Jackson, for example "The Girl Is Mine" and "Say Say Say". All top notch musical performances that show that techincally both are techinally good singers. You could never sing nearly as good as either of those two. Michael Jackson may have turned into a walking freakshow, but this guy dues have a 40 year or so career behind him with some of the best music and best selling music ever made. Thriller to this day remains the best selling album ever.

This is an endless discussion. As Elmo pointed out, this is apples vs. oranges. I say we call it a day and move on to reviewing Stones shows and records and so on!

f9 wrote:

if mick didn't dance all weird, do you think the stones would be fun watching them live????

Uh, yeah.

Also...

he dances all weird and funny, that's why people like it...including myself....and because he can get young chicks.....

Hate to tell you this, but I ain't no young chick. In fact, I'm not a chick and I'm not even young anymore, except when compared to Paul and Mick!

Yeah, this leads nowhere.

you keep saying that macca is not rock and roll

what about heltker sketler, jr famrs , live and let die????


buffoon!!!!

Once again,

Ok, Ok, you're right. Go directly to the Macca board. There's nothing here for you.

Once again,

Ok, Ok, you're right. Go directly to the Macca board. There's nothing here for you.

I say "Goodbye" when you say "Hello".
Goodnight, tonight!

"you keep saying that macca is not rock and roll "

He is a fake rock ' roller.....

Live and let die is a 007 song....

Junior farm is a lala rock song - no credibility - a 50'ies silly high school rock song....

Helten skelter is somehow the only song that comes close to a rock song...

But listening to Macca trying to sing rock song doesn't make sense, because his voice is made for pop tunes, doesn't have the real rough voice.....

He should stay to songs like "no more lonely night" / "silly love song" etc.

Can't imagine him singing fx. a blues song.....

i've got every paul album/cd except for 'wild life' and paul's voice has definitely changed much more than micks. however, paul has always wrote more melodic songs but i would never equate paul with being in a 'rock and roll' band or as a 'rock and roll' singer. he's always been much more a 'pop' writer and vocalist.

both men have definitely contributed to rock but in different ways and have different assets. but, despite mick does sometimes sing 'flat' or nasal, it's very much more carefree/bluesy and he does 'rock' far more than mccartney's releases. on stage mick is much more energetic and fiery. paul is content to sit down and strum a guitar or play the piano.

it's apples and oranges.

I saw Paul in Oslo in 04. Great cozy show. Lot's of good songs. But it's more like a family show, than a rock show. He sang well to. I was very nervous about that after seeing the television show from the cavern a couple of years ago. He was absolutely terrible in his singing. Unbelieveable that he put that out. I thought this man is going down with no style. BUT, he delivered the goods this time, and as a mucisian he is simply one of the greatest.

As far as Mick goes, there is noone around to beat him, young or old. he is all alone at the top! He moves like a 17 year old, he has never sung better, and the show he and his bandmates puts on is simply state of the art!

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man, you're on a Stones forum. If you're going to
> compare Mick Jagger to PAUL MCCARTNEY, I'm going
> to ask you to kindly step away, so we do not have
> to use violence.
>
> Paul McCartney... for gods sake...
>
> Man, let me try to explain.
>
> It may be clearer if I put it on a scale of cool:
>
> 1. MICK JAGGER
>
> 17318. George Bush.
> 17319. Paul McCartney
>
> So, got the picture?

I had Paul in at a solid 17309, I can't believe he's slipped ten spots so fast.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-03 15:07 by bv.

It's not apples and oranges - it's dried plums and lemons
.........Mick 's the lemon squeezer

Mick and Paul are BOTH good singers imo. 'Nuff said.