Listening to ForthWorth express, BS, Bitch, Rocks Off, and I've listened to Ladies and Gent recently too and well...

Man, I can't get over how bad he sings... Am I alone with this?

OK he's fit and can catch the high notes, but he's just so sloppy (gold-coast-slave-ship), no swing at all, and any phrase ending with a curve upwards (I'm feeling so TIRED, can't understand IT) is just dragged.

He takes no care at all of his sound and delivers with a uniform fat voice.

Redeeming moments are arguably Love in Vain, Virginia and Rambler.

While the band is at its tightest, he's just busy doing the sex symbol and as for singing, apparently anything goes (it will get much worth in 75-81).

I like him so much better today! I saw a DVD of Yokohama 2003, arguably not a fab night for his voice, he always takes the lower option, but with such a taste, with such constant presence and subtle swing, counter-times.

Jagger was a poser on stage before and now he's a real singer. Bless the old sir Mick.

i will not tolerate any anti-72 remarks

otonneau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Listening to ForthWorth express, BS, Bitch, Rocks
> Off, and I've listened to Ladies and Gent recently
> too and well...
>
> Man, I can't get over how bad he sings... Am I
> alone with this?
>


if it was me & you you'd be extremely alone.....imo Mick Jagger's lead vocals from '72 are some of the gutsiest, most passionate rock'n'roll live vocals of all-time....he took chances then his vocal chords can't handle anymore.......and the tone of his 29 year old voice was GREAT!!.....if you like mannered vocals, then you won't like these.....his vocals then, added a major exiting element to the music........the best ever!!!..........and he was much more "natural" on stage in '72 than now...his stage persona then was a lot more spontaneous than the chreographed Jagger of the '89 to present period........throw in the dvd of "Ladies & Gents" and you'll see and hear the proof......it's no coincedence why the '72 tour is considered the best tour of all-time by countless Stones fans



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-04 18:47 by Leonard Keringer.

I agree
although the 72-73 performances as a band are stellar, and there is amazing energy. micks singing over all is quite sloppy from time to time, often singing off key. however, in just listening you are missing part of mick performance. when watching the video, you see the singing coming from a very active man, and a man putting his heart into what he is performing. thus i can stand that perhaps not every note is bang on, but is coming from a gutsy place.

didn't jagger make some joke at the press conference to the Julliard students about having been alittle sharp after one number? i guess he still suffers from this problem, ha

y'all want vocal perfection...............try opera, not balls-out r'n'r

Yes, I agree, Mick isn't in his best voice. There is a cut you can observe if you hear "Live at Leeds" and compares it to one of the later boots in the '70. In Leeds Mick has the same style of singing like on Ya Ya's, it is quite good, but from 72/73 onwards he is often more shouting than singing. It is okay on songs like "Gimme Shelter" "war, children, is just a shot away" is to shout, but sometimes he is shouting on every song of a gig, sometimes his voice is out of tune. This style of singing continues, getting worse in '78, a little improvement you can hear in '81/'82, but an essential improvement you have from '89 onwards.

losing my patience here!

some of these posts remind me of the fans of guitar virtuosos, who can play any style a million miles an hour, and not make one mistake......problem is, their playing has no "character"...no "personality"..........one of the appealing aspects of the Stones imo is that they sound like real people when they play, mistakes and all.......showing that they have flaws just like the rest of us.....might be a hard concept to grasp for some



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-04 19:15 by Leonard Keringer.

Hey Leonard, you're not getting my point at all.

I do love lyrical singing, was trained for it, but I love other things too. If I was looking for perfection, absolutely nothing the Stones ever recorded would do anyway, so that's not the point.

I am fully able to enjoy people getting into it, in a great variety of ways. But it's important that they ARE into it. I think Jagger is not into singing during these years, that's all. Nothing to do with looking for perfection. Yokohama is far from perfect singing, but Mick, anyway, is singing; every phrase is expressive, he is in the groove, does a lot of subtle responses to the drums and all. He is concentrated.

Just to chat, I'll digress a bit (having my coffee break)
You say you like it natural and seem to imply I like it artificial. But what is natural? I'll just suggest an example: Let's imagine how it would look if you'd go play tennis and you've never done it before and nobody told you. Now let's compare with a great tennis player on TV. Which one is natural? Is it the clumsy beginner, always behind the ball, or is it the guy who does not even need to try, because it's so well integrated that it flows? I say the second.

Things seem natural when we know them so well that we even forget we ever had to learn them. Jagger is there now. So well-crafter that he can just concentrate on the moment and deliver. He's not trying - but it all comes out so fine.

otonneau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Leonard, you're not getting my point at all.
>

>
> I am fully able to enjoy people getting into it,
> in a great variety of ways. But it's important
> that they ARE into it. I think Jagger is not into
> singing during these years, that's all.
Hey otonneau....you have some good points i.e. the tennis player.....but this is where our opinions differ.....i hear conviction and passion on live recordings from the '72 era while you think Jagger is not "into" it.....oh well...that's what makes this site interesting, instead of a bunch of people always agreeing.....alot to be learned on this site.......enjoy your coffee

Mick is definitely a much better singer now in a lot of ways - he's more nuanced, much more in control of what he's doing . . . but Mick in '72 is my favorite. It's a combination of the '69-'70 style with the mid-'70s shout/growl, mixed in with some drunken slurring and legit R&B influence. I think by fall '73, he'd fully gone into shout mode, but in '72 and Far East '73, he'd found the perfect balance.

How much do you think too much coke had to do with his change in vocal style? It freezes up the vocal chords, and by, say Brussels '73, his voice was definitely not as limber as it was the year before.

Yes, it's a matter of taste, not a difference in principles.

These disagreements are really fascinating. If I wanted perfection and you wanted rawness, then it would be understandable that you'd like it and I don't.
But we're looking for the same thing, so what's the matter? Are we not HEARING the same thing?

The funny bit is that when I was 18-25, I'd blow my ears off with Brussels and Forth Worth and a lot more (ah, I had all these CDs by the late, great Swinging Pigs... and sold them) and sure as hell I heard passion, conviction, danger in Jagger's vocals. And now I don't! Where is it gone?

I'm extending my break here, gotta go. But in my case, I think the turning point was the discovery of soul and ESPECIALLY of Sam Cooke. There I heard another way of having energy. Another way of breathing, projecting the voice, not some sort of let-it-all-go energy, but something like a control. How to say? The difference perhaps between the energy you find in martial arts and the one you find in boxing (not that I practised either of them, but somehow it seems telling! :-) ). And I soon ceased to hear energy where I used to hear it.

Well...back to work.

When they played in Rotterdam in '73 there was an article in the newspaper what the Stones wanted in there dressing rooms this was not only Jus and if you take this with the two shows a day as they did sback then, your right he didn't sound always that good.

Glad they he didn't sound each concert perfectly otherwise we only had to buy one boot per tour.

Nico

Hey Nico, making mistakes is not the only way of varying what you do! :-)

JuanTCB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick is definitely a much better singer now in a
> lot of ways - he's more nuanced, much more in
> control of what he's doing . . . but Mick in '72
> is my favorite. It's a combination of the '69-'70
> style with the mid-'70s shout/growl, mixed in with
> some drunken slurring and legit R&B influence.
> I think by fall '73, he'd fully gone into shout
> mode, but in '72 and Far East '73, he'd found the
> perfect balance.
>
> How much do you think too much coke had to do with
> his change in vocal style? It freezes up the
> vocal chords, and by, say Brussels '73, his voice
> was definitely not as limber as it was the year
> before.


JuanTCB...bet your spot-on 'bout the coke/vocals problem...and yeah, there is a big difference between '72/far east '73 and fall '73 vocals.....this topic reminds me of the first Clash lp.....Strummer's passionate growl....technically not the greatest singer, but full of piss'n'vineagar and conviction.....also Mr.Rotten circa '77 Bollocks....not what you call virtuosity, but again, full of passionate angst, conviction and character



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-04 19:47 by Leonard Keringer.

Yes, Clash is the same matter, and in fact I almost mentioned that. Was a huge clash fan and I still worship their attitudes. Coolest dudes on earth. But although i still like the albums, well I played my boots and I used to worship these boots and... the ForthWorth effect had happened.

Mick sings worse now because he tries to sing good, in 1972 he was pure rock n roll. Too polished now!

otonneau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The funny bit is that when I was 18-25, I'd blow
> my ears off with Brussels and Forth Worth and a
> lot more (ah, I had all these CDs by the late,
> great Swinging Pigs... and sold them) and sure as
> hell I heard passion, conviction, danger in
> Jagger's vocals. And now I don't! Where is it
> gone?


otonneau...an interesting clue.....where has it gone?.....well, imo it hasn't gone anywhere...it's still the exact same sound.....we, not the recorded music, change over the years.....even though i still love to blow my ears out with Ft.Worth '72 and Brussels '73.........still a goose-bump inducing experience

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick sings worse now because he tries to sing
> good, in 1972 he was pure rock n roll. Too
> polished now!
>
> You're all forgiven! And now...


Very good point indeed! Mick is probably better tecnically now, but for me the Stones , and especially Jagger, was at the peek around '72...

Plus it was pretty hot that day in Texas. He thought the crowd was going to splode.

The first time I saw the Stones was in '75.

I was belly-up to the stage and is was as load as a jet aircraft engine.

I doubt Mick could even hear his own monitors, so it's no wonder he might have been off key from time to time.

Mick is definately a better singer now than back in 1972, but it's too polished for mine..

However, there was no guy in the world who could put up a vocal performance as Jagger did in 72/73....amazing how that guy still had a voice after performing all those shows in consecutive days....brilliant.

I'd much rather hear 1972 shows with Mick's voice as it was back then, to Mick's voice of today....

Esky

He's a much better singer now because he's not gakked to the gills, racing around like he's in a track meet. I mean he still moves and puts on a fantastic show, but not enough to affect his vocals, as he used to. Also, the advances in sound reinforcement technology over the last few tours have definitely improved the quality of his vocals.

In terms of songs, there are those that he sang better in the old days, and songs that he sings better now.

Mick in 72 was the coolest guy on earth, later matched only by Keith in 1978.

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

Not to get too off-topic, but Leonard & otonneau, great analogies.

The one thing I hate about Lydon is how his singing style kind of became this awful, pseudo-Arabic sounding, high off-pitch drone around the time of late PiL (9 & That What Is Not, especially). My one bone of contention with the Pistols reunion was that he sang in that style. Loved the show yet can't listen to the live album from the reunion tour because of the vocals.

My favorite Strummer bit (one of those all-time great little moments in rock, in my opinion) is from "Complete Control" on the From Here To Eternity live album (I think C.C. is taken from one of the Bonds NYC shows), when, just as the last part of the song kicks in (right after the solo), Strummer just shouts this really weird, raw scream. If you type it out, it will read "WAAAAAAAAAA", but believe me - it does not sound like a baby crying. It's a @#$%& roar! Abolutely incredible moment. Of course, Strummer was one of those guys who even sounded good in an interview - he just had a really cool timber to his voice, speaking or singing.

But back to Mick. Even though he sounded horrible some of the tours mentioned, I think his low point was in '89/'90 - he overenunciated every single syllable. The voice was back, for sure, but it was almost like he didn't know what to do with it. Took him a tour to figure out a delivery, because by Voodoo Lounge, he was in fine form.

For that matter, I can't believe how great he sounds on the Boston '99 boot available here - a lot of the vocals sound like they're from the mid-sixties - he sounds that young.

Now listening to Oakland 69 which was so kindly posted. Had not heard it in, say, 6 years. Now THAT's just soo brilliant!

And of course when I was 20 I'd overlook this show in favour the 72 stuff. But hey, now that's a singer! Here we have the sort of careless delivery, but it's faux carelessness, "I'm free to sing my song though it's a llllllelelelittle bit out of time", so cool.

Diff between 69 and 72: on the very slow tempos of 69, Mick manages to create brilliant dynamics. On the very fast tempos of 72, he makes the songs sound slow because he does not take care of his dynamics.

Another analogy: when Fred Astaire pretends to be a bad dancer, it's hilarious. When your drunken friend pretends to be a bad dancer (which he is) it's embarassing. Mick fits in the first category in 69, it seems.

He works for the band and within the band (aah Sympathy in 69, the break between the two solos, Mick and Keith trading licks before Taylor gets his go) and reworks the melodies so intelligently. A masterpiece.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-05 12:59 by otonneau.

Mick's vocals in 72 were amongst the best of his career most definitely. I could never compare his vocals then to his vocals now . He's completely lost his growl which was a defining aspect of his singing which compributed to making the Stones 'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World'. Just listen to his recent vocals on 'Sway' - does that sound like a rock 'n' roll voice to you, bursting with vitality?

I admit by the mid seventies his growl may have become a little too pronounced and his vocals a little sloppy but that's rock 'n' roll - hard and dirty.

His vocals don't do a lot for me these days.

Otonneau, i have nothing intelligent to add, but sure hope you'll go on with this thread -
i don't know anything about vocal technique/terminology, and it fascinates me.

to me ... the Stones are a guitar band, not a vocal group, and Mick's vocals groove me best when they're working as a rhythm instrument,
tucked in with the guitars - one fine instrument among the other instruments, not stuck way up front as the main focus,
which may be part of why it's easier for me than for you to get into Mick's 72-style vocals even though he's a better vocalist now.

on a related note, it's always fascinated me that there's clearly a sector of the audience for whom it seems "song" = the vocal line.
(i hasten to add that i don't mean you seem to be one of them, Otonneau! but i'm hoping maybe you can comment on this phenomenon.)
i always wonder where this comes from - is that the way some people just naturally hear,
or is it something acquired from repeated exposure the classic pop-music paradigm of vocalist + backing musicians?


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-06 14:03 by with sssoul.

Everybody sounds ragged after juicing up But I like it, I think Mick was great on the 72-tour!