He didn't know there was a saxophone on Miss You! It's Mel Collins. Weird he never had the channel up just out of curiosity - a defining moment since that saxophone-less mix is the UK single version!

That was pretty cool - thanks for posting. I’m wondering if it’s a few years old - I thought he mixed Live at the ElMo but it isn’t mentioned.

That was great GLS! Thanks for posting! I wonder if it is Chris Kimsey he describes as the geezer not able to attend most of the TY sessions?

Also very interesting hearing about Keith's low guitar and Bob's opinion about how SAL "could've been better". I think it's almost perfect (I know I'm in the minority here), only bit is the fact that the music from Beacon is turned a semi-tone down. Never understood why

Didn’t the movie Shine a Light have some kind of audio device where when the camera focuses on that member of the band his playing gets louder? Bob ought to remix Ladies and Gentlemen.He has a great name for a mixing engineer

Quote
MadMax
I think it's almost perfect (I know I'm in the minority here), only bit is the fact that the music from Beacon is turned a semi-tone down. Never understood why

Sure? Never noticed. For sure at least She Was Hot is not tuned down, I learnt quite a few licks form it.

What does sound strange - as if sped up - is micks voice.

C

Quote
MadMax
That was great GLS! Thanks for posting! I wonder if it is Chris Kimsey he describes as the geezer not able to attend most of the TY sessions?

Also very interesting hearing about Keith's low guitar and Bob's opinion about how SAL "could've been better". I think it's almost perfect (I know I'm in the minority here), only bit is the fact that the music from Beacon is turned a semi-tone down. Never understood why

Based on what information there is about the TATTOO YOU overdub/mixing sessions in New York, it must've been Kimsey. It appears he had other work to go off to but he only compiled 8 years and 5 album sessions worth of leftovers in 3 months or whatever to rough mix and edit just so Mick and Keith could listen, a majority coming from the EMOTIONAL RESCUE sessions, at least in regard to what got released, and then spent October through December with Mick in Paris recording vocals.

I vaguely remember reading way back that for some songs they tuned down a half step because of Mick's voice, since he had gotten bronchitis or whatever just prior to those shows.

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
That was pretty cool - thanks for posting. I’m wondering if it’s a few years old - I thought he mixed Live at the ElMo but it isn’t mentioned.

It says it was posted 3 years ago. He hadn't mixed MOCAMBO yet.

The bit that tickled me, though its been said before, is the bit about whoever was last in the control room determining whether Mick's vocal or Keith's guitar would be loudest in the mix.

A little more seriously, for periods in the past Mick seemed to prefer his vocal buried quite deep by normal standards. Maybe it was confidence thing...or maybe Keith was winning the arguments ?..

...but I've always preferred the mix of Stones records when you have to really listen into the mix to hear what's going on .

This is a big part of Exile's magic for me.

Quote
Spud
The bit that tickled me, though its been said before, is the bit about whoever was last in the control room determining whether Mick's vocal or Keith's guitar would be loudest in the mix.

A little more seriously, for periods in the past Mick seemed to prefer his vocal buried quite deep by normal standards. Maybe it was confidence thing...or maybe Keith was winning the arguments ?..

...but I've always preferred the mix of Stones records when you have to really listen into the mix to hear what's going on .

This is a big part of Exile's magic for me.

I remember reading about the vocal being in the mix, a blend with the band, in a couple of books a long time ago. Can't recall if I've ever seen anything online about it. Something about how his blues idols did the same thing and that it would make people listen.

Yet nothing really sounds like that.

Actually, I can't think of one song other than the meandering Just Wanna See His Face, that you can't hear Mick's voice clearly. Perhaps industry wise his voice is buried or blended in the mix compared to

Robert Plant
John Lennon
Roger Daltry
Freddie Mercury
Paul McCartney

etc

They're all mixed higher up.

Rolling Stone #19 --- October 1968



ROCKMAN

Mick's enunciation is definitely something to behold, at least pre-1986. Since then it's been a, eh, well, anyway, his muddying of words, that sort of leering sneer he achieves by drawing certain letters out is way more important to the overall vibe of the song than how his vocal isn't really buried in the mix but blended just above enough:

The only reason anything is indecipherable is not because of the mix.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Mick's enunciation is definitely something to behold, at least pre-1986. Since then it's been a, eh, well, anyway, his muddying of words, that sort of leering sneer he achieves by drawing certain letters out is way more important to the overall vibe of the song than how his vocal isn't really buried in the mix but blended just above enough:

The only reason anything is indecipherable is not because of the mix.

The thing about Mick, like Frank sinatra, or Bob Dylan (or a number of other examples), he doesn't have a classically great singing voice, in the way a Robert Plant, Freddie Mercury or Roger Daltry have.

What his voice has, is charisma. His phrasing, ability to bend the words, twist the syllables, slide in and out of accents and falsettos, actually enhance the emotion contained within the lyrics and music, that's what sets him apart.

And also why if you say something like, "there will never be another Mick Jagger", of course there won't. Because the music is ensconced with personality. That's what you get, that individuality. It's why it's so hard to "cover" a Stones song and have it sound great. It's why a song like She's So Cold, which is average at best, when performed by Mick and Keith and Charlie becomes stratospheric.

Sort of like in the guitar world, where you have far better technical guitarists than Keith, but none that touch him in the vibe/mood/energy. His charismatic approach to the guitar and the spaces he creates in much the same way Mick approaches vocals I believe is why we're here.

If you don't like their personalities and the way the music is an extension of those personalities, you probably aren't a Stones fan.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
Mick's enunciation is definitely something to behold, at least pre-1986. Since then it's been a, eh, well, anyway, his muddying of words, that sort of leering sneer he achieves by drawing certain letters out is way more important to the overall vibe of the song than how his vocal isn't really buried in the mix but blended just above enough:

The only reason anything is indecipherable is not because of the mix.

The thing about Mick, like Frank sinatra, or Bob Dylan (or a number of other examples), he doesn't have a classically great singing voice, in the way a Robert Plant, Freddie Mercury or Roger Daltry have.

What his voice has, is charisma. His phrasing, ability to bend the words, twist the syllables, slide in and out of accents and falsettos, actually enhance the emotion contained within the lyrics and music, that's what sets him apart.

And also why if you say something like, "there will never be another Mick Jagger", of course there won't. Because the music is ensconced with personality. That's what you get, that individuality. It's why it's so hard to "cover" a Stones song and have it sound great. It's why a song like She's So Cold, which is average at best, when performed by Mick and Keith and Charlie becomes stratospheric.

Sort of like in the guitar world, where you have far better technical guitarists than Keith, but none that touch him in the vibe/mood/energy. His charismatic approach to the guitar and the spaces he creates in much the same way Mick approaches vocals I believe is why we're here.

If you don't like their personalities and the way the music is an extension of those personalities, you probably aren't a Stones fan.

Very well said!

Defining the "x" factor for an artist or band is elusive at best. Excellent work, treacle.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
Mick's enunciation is definitely something to behold, at least pre-1986. Since then it's been a, eh, well, anyway, his muddying of words, that sort of leering sneer he achieves by drawing certain letters out is way more important to the overall vibe of the song than how his vocal isn't really buried in the mix but blended just above enough:

The only reason anything is indecipherable is not because of the mix.

The thing about Mick, like Frank sinatra, or Bob Dylan (or a number of other examples), he doesn't have a classically great singing voice, in the way a Robert Plant, Freddie Mercury or Roger Daltry have.

What his voice has, is charisma. His phrasing, ability to bend the words, twist the syllables, slide in and out of accents and falsettos, actually enhance the emotion contained within the lyrics and music, that's what sets him apart.

And also why if you say something like, "there will never be another Mick Jagger", of course there won't. Because the music is ensconced with personality. That's what you get, that individuality. It's why it's so hard to "cover" a Stones song and have it sound great. It's why a song like She's So Cold, which is average at best, when performed by Mick and Keith and Charlie becomes stratospheric.

Sort of like in the guitar world, where you have far better technical guitarists than Keith, but none that touch him in the vibe/mood/energy. His charismatic approach to the guitar and the spaces he creates in much the same way Mick approaches vocals I believe is why we're here.

If you don't like their personalities and the way the music is an extension of those personalities, you probably aren't a Stones fan.

That's why talent is unique. No one plays like... no one sings like... there certainly can be moments where it's Oh wow, I heard a little (name here), one word, a guitar lick, etc.

When Ian Astbury toured with The Doors (and the other names they had to use) a lot of people were 'He's a Morrison imitator'. Astbury certainly was/is influenced by Morrison but not one time did he ever sound like Morrison. Similar? Yes. But that's as far as it goes.

You can listen to the Teskey Brothers and hear obvious influences, like Sam Cooke or Al Green or Marvin Gaye or Curtis Mayfield etc... similar stylings but not one of them exactly sounds like any other, there's just a much wider range of influence in that music, which the Teskey Brothers absolutely nail.

Has Mick Jagger ever imitated Chuck Berry or Muddy Waters? No. But you can tell he's influenced by them.

Keith Richards? You can tell the difference between Keith and Chuck, Keith and Muddy. It's much closer than any singer will ever be to someone - so far, anyway - but it's not the same.

Rich Robinson, on the other hand, ha ha... yet still sounds like Rich Robinson.

Quote
treaclefingers

The thing about Mick, like Frank sinatra, or Bob Dylan (or a number of other examples), he doesn't have a classically great singing voice, in the way a Robert Plant, Freddie Mercury or Roger Daltry have.

What his voice has, is charisma. His phrasing, ability to bend the words, twist the syllables, slide in and out of accents and falsettos, actually enhance the emotion contained within the lyrics and music, that's what sets him apart.

And also why if you say something like, "there will never be another Mick Jagger", of course there won't. Because the music is ensconced with personality. That's what you get, that individuality. It's why it's so hard to "cover" a Stones song and have it sound great. It's why a song like She's So Cold, which is average at best, when performed by Mick and Keith and Charlie becomes stratospheric.

Sort of like in the guitar world, where you have far better technical guitarists than Keith, but none that touch him in the vibe/mood/energy. His charismatic approach to the guitar and the spaces he creates in much the same way Mick approaches vocals I believe is why we're here.

If you don't like their personalities and the way the music is an extension of those personalities, you probably aren't a Stones fan.

The thing is, they can play any popular genre, any song ...good, bad or indifferent...and it still sounds, above all else, like the Rolling Stones.

It's the wonderful collective noise they make that attracted me so intensely to this band, and still does to this day.

Quote
The Joker

I'm very fond of the very tasteful pink 12" vinyl edition.

Captain Corella