After listening to the fantastic 320kbps Honky Tonk from the LA Forum, I think the band sounds fine, but Mick's affected and slurred vocals just grate on my nerves.

Frankly, I prefer the "modern" Mick -- no more of that "you should never sing out the lyrics too clearly" nonsense. The man has learned how to "sing", and now he does it better than ever. This is the one thing that amazes me so much in both the Licks tour and the current one.

To put it another way -- I much prefer the "sophisicated" Mick over the "crude" Mick. Either way, the man still has the moves. Others may differ.

i'd say he's the weak link in '73 too. GHS is ruined by his awful vocals.

He was at his best both live and in the studio in 1972.

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i'd say he's the weak link in '73 too. GHS is
> ruined by his awful vocals.

Was that some sarcasm? Mick was fine in'73, but '75-76 was the nadir for Mick's vocals.

Now he's an overpowering link! I'll take '75 over the Mick Jagger band approach going on now.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nikkibong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i'd say he's the weak link in '73 too. GHS
> is
> > ruined by his awful vocals.
>
> Was that some sarcasm? Mick was fine in'73, but
> '75-76 was the nadir for Mick's vocals.
>
>
dead serious, actually. i hate the nasaly, muddled sound on that record.

I'm with Half Nanker. Today's vocal styling is not for me. My wife thinks he sounds like an old gay man.

Ive talked about this in another post. In Love You live, by the time he gets to JJ flash hes barely singing anymore. (but, he still maintains a certian standard its not TOTAL garbage - the last few songs that is). His voice is much stronger from begining to end today compared to that tour, if Love You Live is any indication.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-29 04:25 by ryanpow.

luv '75 Mick - it was an affected style, but purrfect for the period

the thing I like about the stones is that they're always evolving. it was cool at the time. but then it was time to move on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-29 05:32 by ryanpow.

I think you guys are all homophobic.......re: 1975 Mick haters

GHS has wonderful vocals, but 75/76 was indeed horrible.

GHS is wonderful IMO. 75/76 he was okay on record I think but live...I dunno know. But he looked cool during that period.

Jagger '00 is a bit too polished sometimes. And so are his dancing and stage moves. Why the hell does he need a chorographer? I mean, really. When I saw that on Four Flicks I had to laugh. It sometimes looks really funny - not to say embarrassing.

Mick rocked in 1975. I was in attendance July 9, 1975 at the Inglewood Forum,Los Angeles, CA. His voice is still quite good today and let's face it, for a 62 year old man, Mick is a stud.

MSG New York 1975



ROCKMAN

The vocals on Goat's Head Soup are very good. I like the ones in 100 Years Ago especially. In 1975 I don't really think this band had any weak link...

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

Any one who complains about Mick's performance in 1975 obviously was not there. Mountains of coke had an effect, but it was their height of decadence and part of the period. Given a choice if time travel were possible, I would go back to an early 75 show over 73 because the sets were longer and better, they were way more over the top, and in fact way more out of control than 73. Music purists who don't like the glam and glitz of the circus would probably prefer 73. IMHO, the 75 lotus stage has never been topped.

jagger the weak link?he,s never be the weak link to the stones.so there is too many of socalled keith,s pals on this site.maybee better to read the whole stone,s story,not only keith,s version.just about everytime i go to this board,there is someone complain about something about jagger.
think about keith,s guitarpart the last years,not much to rave about this either

The slurred vocals was horrible. But he was certainly a superb entertainer during the shows...

harlem shuffle got it in one.spot on

I agree with StonesTod, and it WAS the style, or at least HIS style in 1975. I loved both the 1972 and 1975 tours ALOT but I know that because Mick now takes vocal lessons ,it has affected his style of singing. I like being able to hear the words! Mick is NOT a croner, he is a singer in a rock band, the GREATEST rock band, and this has to be considered! Mick IMO can put a song over like no one else and it's because of the uniqueness of his style that the band is still on top; ( at least it's ONE reason for their longevity). Anything that can be copied fades, the Stones stand all by themselves at the top and although alot of garage bands can actually sound like them, Jagger/Richards are not a team that can be duplicated in totale.

Personally I think he wasn't very good throughout the 70's.. he just did some senseless growling to the melody.. but in '81/'82 he was awesome.. he hit incredibly high notes and sang very clearly.

I also think that 1975 (more than 1976) was the nadir of Mick's singing because he missed half the syllables. If they had gone on like this they would not have had success on the following tours. Although I like some live recordngs from 1975 I think that some arrangements weren't really that good (e.g. Heartbreaker or Gimme shelter or some versions of Wild horses or some of the warhorses).
GHS is another problem. I guess it's bad mixing which makes the record sound rather hollow. See on Brussels Affair how good a song like Dancing with Mr D actually was.

Habaika, wih yo foeyfoe!!

Mick Jagger, during "Heartbreaker", 1975.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-29 16:31 by Reptile.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Habaika, wih yo foeyfoe!!
>
> Mick Jagger, during "Heartbreaker", 1975.
>


LOL..singing in Hebrew never was Mick's strong point!

Half Nanker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now he's an overpowering link! I'll take '75 over
> the Mick Jagger band approach going on now.

Not really a fair comparison. If your synopsis of the band as it is in 2006 is accurate its because Jagger has held the band together more on the last couple of tours through necessity, as opposed than anything else. Hardly HIS fault he's still on the top of his game.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reptile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Habaika, wih yo foeyfoe!!
> >
> > Mick Jagger, during "Heartbreaker", 1975.
> >
>
>
> LOL..singing in Hebrew never was Mick's strong
> point!
>

a jumma ja fla, issa ga ga ga...

Mick's vocals are too clean these days - i prefer 75 anyday even if his vocals were a bit sloppy.

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ive talked about this in another post. In Love You
> live, by the time he gets to JJ flash hes barely
> singing anymore. (but, he still maintains a
> certian standard its not TOTAL garbage - the last
> few songs that is). His voice is much stronger
> from begining to end today compared to that tour,
> if Love You Live is any indication.
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/29/06 04:25 by
> ryanpow.


he does'nt party anymore...pretty simple...

If anyone has Jean-Marie's book from the 75 tour, check out all the stories in the press from that tour. Mick was quoted saying that whiskey makes his singing voice better as he was half drunk and another person was quoted saying that they wouldn't be surpirsed if any one of the Stones dropped dead any day by the way they were partying every night.

I think drugs and alcohol played a part in the way Jagger sounded. A person I know who was at one of the MSG shows said that Jagger came out on stage with white stuff all over his hands and shirt and it was pretty obvious what it was. Seemed like maybe the height of Mick's drug use.