I've just been watching a webcast of The Who in concert the other night (have a look at [thewholive.tv] - its good!) and it occured to me just how great Micks voice still is after all these years. Roger Daltreys voice sounds completely shot. He sings everything an octave deeper than the original - something Robert Plant's also been doing for years. And, as for Bob Dylan, ....unrecognisable, quite frankly. But our Mick really still sounds exactly as he did back in the sixties, if not better. His vocals in Munich, especially on Streets of Love, were almost spinetingling. I wonder what he gargles with..........

David Bowie?

:-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-18 22:07 by WMiller.

Yes I have noticed this as well. I wouldn't say Mick sounds like he did in the 60s but you can say he sounds a lot better today than some of his shows in the past. He has learned to sing over the years. Daultry and Plant are nothing like their former selves. Could have to do with their style of singing. Be interesting to hear what someone like Chris Cornell will sound like when he is older.

lol

Our Mick WORKS at preserving his pipes by voice training and alot of discipline. He understands that his music is not only his big love in life but it's also his job. I loved the scenes from 4 Flicks showing him warming up backstage before a show! It made me laugh but then I realized exactly how dedicated he is and also how much pride he takes in his performance. We reap the benefits for sure!

WMiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David Bowie?
>
> :-)

Yeah, bowie's voice has held up still better than mick's. mick has good control of what he's able to do, but when he gets too twangy he sounds like an old man (no great fault, since he is one).

If anyone's interested, there is a free webcast of The Who playing live tonight, starting in about 5 minutes, on the link I gave above.

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, bowie's voice has held up still better than
> mick's. mick has good control of what he's able to
> do, but when he gets too twangy he sounds like an
> old man (no great fault, since he is one).

I think it's really wierd that his voice is so good, as he smoked 60 cigarettes a day for 30-40 years.
Yet, I agree that he has this certain sound on "eeeee" that's a bit...you know.
But that's not becuase of his aging voice, he does that on purpous.

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
WMiller Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
David Bowie?

> :-)

Yeah, bowie's voice has held up still better than mick's. mick has good control of what he's able to do, but when he gets too twangy he sounds like an old man (no great fault, since he is one).



cc - I think you missed Mr. Miller's meaning.

what's with all the imbedded slams at Dylan's voice in various threads? Bob's lost some of his high-end in recent years, but "unrecognizeable?" He still has one of the most potent, recognizeable inimitable voices in the biz. The word is that it is quite a powerful instrument on the upcoming album, too....

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what's with all the imbedded slams at Dylan's
> voice in various threads?

It's the jealousy I mentioned earlier...

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> WMiller Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------
> -
> David Bowie?
>
> > :-)
>
> Yeah, bowie's voice has held up still better than
> mick's. mick has good control of what he's able to
> do, but when he gets too twangy he sounds like an
> old man (no great fault, since he is one).
>
>
>
> cc - I think you missed Mr. Miller's meaning.

Yeah, I noticed that it was missed by some...Damn Cindy, you have SUCH a nasty mind girl, nothing gets past you (I'm reporting you to the Nuns - lol)

Mick is pro! He knows what it takes, and he does his homework properly. He keeps his body fit, his voice fit and his performance fit. Very few people in that business does that after so many years.

WMiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David Bowie?
>
> :-)


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

Dirty boy...

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

Mick's got simply the best rock'n' Roll voice nowdays.He is the king of this (all) Rolling Stones tour.He is the motor, but without Keith he is absolutely nothing. The Rolling Stones is a gang myth.

MicksBrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I noticed that it was missed by some...Damn Cindy, you have SUCH a nasty mind girl, nothing gets past you (I'm reporting you to the Nuns -lol)


It was the nuns who made me the way I am. Remember those girly slumber party/orgies myth I was talking about, well the nun myth is true.

(that is a complete fabrication on my part, simply to amuse Mick's Brain, please disregard if you are offended, however if you found it funny, please rejoice amongst yourselves)

-I wonder what he gargles with..........
-David Bowie?

Is that a hypothesis? Great one!

Yes, Mick sounds just great.
It's odd, he has regained a lot of his high register, gradually, from 94 to the present day. But the price to pay, as it seems, was to sing in a very nasal voice. He was always nasal, but check Con le mie lacrime... And sometimes he sounds a little thin.
Also, he often sings slightly out of tune now, which was not the case from 89 to 94.

I think it's nothing to do with a damage to the instrument, but rather a technical choice; if you sing nasally, you do get to a higher note, at the expense of the richness of the sound and the accuracy of pitch. That been said, it also gives his sound an edge which was missing in 89-94, so altogether, among the "singing Micks" (no singing done on stage prior to 89, at least technically speaking, which does not mean he didn't do some great growling), this year's Mick is my favourite.

I just love his voice and I love to compare tours and how he uses it. It's like comparing vintage wines from year to year (which, actually, I never do!).

Daultrey still can scream like a mutha!

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-07 21:22 by Beelyboy.

otonneau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I just love his voice and I love to compare tours
> and how he uses it. It's like comparing vintage
> wines from year to year (which, actually, I never
> do!).


Nice analogy! I like that.

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

> I think it's nothing to do with a damage to the
> instrument, but rather a technical choice; if you
> sing nasally, you do get to a higher note, at the
> expense of the richness of the sound and the
> accuracy of pitch. That been said, it also gives
> his sound an edge which was missing in 89-94, so
> altogether, among the "singing Micks" (no singing
> done on stage prior to 89, at least technically
> speaking, which does not mean he didn't do some
> great growling), this year's Mick is my
> favourite.

It's always great to hear otonnoau's comments about Mick's singing, but I have to admit I miss Mick growling instead of singing properly. I don't like his overaffected voice in many songs nowadays.

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

In Milan,Keith's voice was also outstanding. I did not hear him sing like this for many years. Maybe he decreases his smoking and drinking sharply. Maybe he also practices gargling like Mick. Would be fun to have Charlie and Keith singing Happy Birthday to Mick at Berlin show.

Yes I agree Mick's voice is sounding great,probably better than it did in the 80's or 90's.Both in concert and on disc.Streets of Love is a prime example of the latter.
As for Sir Bob this man just gets better!Check out his vocals on Nashville Skyline.I much prefer the gravely vocals of today.Good news he has a new disc coming out.

Nashville Skyline is an exception, I read somewhere it's because he quit smoking for a time.
As for smoking (also mentioned about Bowie), the funny thing is that it hardly affects the voice if your technique is good. There are countless examples of opera singers who are smokers, including one who always had someone behind the curtains with a cigarette lit, so he could take a puff in between arias!

I have to say, much as I like a lot of technically imperfect singers (Dylan himself on Blonde on Blonde, for instance, or Lou Reed during the Velvet years, or many soul/blues singers), it's a mystery to me how Dylan's voice today can appeal to anyone. He sure has one of the most recognizable instruments, but to me, I recognize it because..... it's the ugliest one. It's not even Tom Wait's fascinating deep broken growl, it's just the thinest, most nerve-wrecking nose-squeezing I've ever heard. I think he's lucky to be an established legend, as nobody would ever get away with that otherwise. Well... just my opinion!

otonneau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
), it's a
> mystery to me how Dylan's voice today can appeal
> to anyone. He sure has one of the most
> recognizable instruments, but to me, I recognize
> it because..... it's the ugliest one. It's not
> even Tom Wait's fascinating deep broken growl,
> it's just the thinest, most nerve-wrecking
> nose-squeezing I've ever heard. I think he's lucky
> to be an established legend, as nobody would ever
> get away with that otherwise. Well... just my
> opinion!


I like that sentence:

"I think he's lucky to be an established legend, as nobody would ever
get away with that otherwise."

It reminds me a certain legendaric guitarist in a certain rock&roll band - a guy who manages to screw up from time to time the simple intros and riffs that once made him famous..

But what goes for Bobby's voice, yeah that has always, since day zero, been a debated issue... I thought the voice was totally gone in the early 90's but I have learned to like it again - and he has learned a new way to use his instrument. I think he has gone beyond the 'normal scale' a long ago - it's purely an unique instrument, no vocal, these days - it's not even singing anymore and I think we should not think it in terms like that - it's totally new way of expression - no one's done that before. No point in comparison - he is unique - just like Keith.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-19 16:01 by Doxa.

Doxa - anyway, the one who loves is always right, so I take your point.

And I agree that no solo artist whatsoever on this planet would ever hire to Keith to accompany him if he was unknown!
BUT - I still think there is a world of difference between his loss of skills and that of Dylan. Keith still plays very well in good night, and his sound is still great, and he grooves - it's easier to groove with few notes than to sing with no voice!

I agree with bruno completely. Mick's voice has got a lot lower and heavier as he's got older and this seems to result in him overaccentuating in many of the lyrics which i find becomes irritating. I preferred his singing when it had a lighter touch and displayed a lot more raw energy including the growl and scream. It suited perfectly the Stones style. He's lost that now and he's sounding very flat at times.

--Meanwhile--

2 1 2 0

He actually gargles with luke warm tea, honey and vitamin E.

2 of the last three times I saw The Who Daltry lost his voice for 1 or 2 songs and Pete had to take over.