Hi all

erikjjf wrote:
>His singing has improved a lot over the years<.

Completely agree.
Look. Five seconds on the stage and has got all the audience in the stadium in his hand.
63 years old and is incredible fitness.
Years of experience and a lot of hours of trainning.

There's no doubdt in my mind that he sang much much better rock style singing in the seventies- and eighties tours than the straight and too controlled singing from the Voodoo Lounge tours until today.

> Look. Five seconds on the stage and has got all
> the audience in the stadium in his hand.

That's simply because he's "Mick Jagger". Nothing to do with how he sings.

> 63 years old and is incredible fitness.

True. Still has nothing to do with his 'modern era' vocal ways.

> Years of experience and a lot of hours of
> trainning.

True.

I'm still waiting for what this has to do with his singing today. He's been sounds like someones holding his nose since 89, however, at least he made it work then somewhat. Check out Tokyo 2nd bang - Gimme Shelter. He start to sing in a different key - something vocalists know that you don't do (ESPECIALLY with his years of experience) unless you are really losing it. His snarl has been one since 78, but now when you hear a 2005-2006 boot, there's barely hints of expression of any sort - especially the way he just stacottally honks out the phrases for the warhorses.

I'm too embarrassed as a fan to play any boots from the last tour to any friends of mine who know what a huge fan I am.

They're now a keyboard-horn band with a great bass player and a click-tracked drummer. Mick, whose voice WAS such a huge part of the essence of the Stones for me, has got to make some changes because if they keep the way they're going now, their performance problems which are brought on by age (NO ONE can deny this) will really start to make them look foolish.

I mean, their energy and sound has been all their one saving grace from cynics and critics from 1989-2003. Even some of their hmost hard-core fans gave those 'uh-oh' looks on their latest tour (albiet more so because of Keith - he's just lost nowadays).

From all the shows I've seen, and all the boots I've heard, that most recent gig where Mick sounds like how I love him to sound, nailing every song and just sounding 'cool' - is Webster Hall, 1993.

I was listening to some Europe '70 shows and was struck my Jagger's singing. He was playing with the phrasings and it was at times very soulful.

He was the greatest front man - ever.

there's barely hints of expression
> of any sort - especially the way he just
> stacottally honks out the phrases for the
> warhorses.
>
> I'm too embarrassed as a fan to play any boots
> from the last tour to any friends of mine who know
> what a huge fan I am.



I agreeto a 100%. This is what I moan about. The lack of expression, the honking, and being embarrassed about being a fan when people think Im a fan of JJF ala 2006 or 1989. Im a fan of the 70s, 80s and of ocurse 60s Stones, expression, lifestyle, singing, the music, everything.


>
> They're now a keyboard-horn band with a great bass
> player and a click-tracked drummer. Mick, whose
> voice WAS such a huge part of the essence of the
> Stones for me, has got to make some changes
> because if they keep the way they're going now,
> their performance problems which are brought on by
> age (NO ONE can deny this) will really start to
> make them look foolish.
>
> I mean, their energy and sound has been all their
> one saving grace from cynics and critics from
> 1989-2003. Even some of their hmost hard-core fans
> gave those 'uh-oh' looks on their latest tour
> (albiet more so because of Keith - he's just lost
> nowadays).
>
> From all the shows I've seen, and all the boots
> I've heard, that most recent gig where Mick sounds
> like how I love him to sound, nailing every song
> and just sounding 'cool' - is Webster Hall, 1993.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Look. Five seconds on the stage and has got all
> > the audience in the stadium in his hand.
>
> That's simply because he's "Mick Jagger". Nothing
> to do with how he sings.
>
> > 63 years old and is incredible fitness.
>
> True. Still has nothing to do with his 'modern
> era' vocal ways.
>
> > Years of experience and a lot of hours of
> > trainning.
>
> True.
>
> I'm still waiting for what this has to do with his
> singing today. He's been sounds like someones
> holding his nose since 89, however, at least he
> made it work then somewhat. Check out Tokyo 2nd
> bang - Gimme Shelter. He start to sing in a
> different key - something vocalists know that you
> don't do (ESPECIALLY with his years of experience)
> unless you are really losing it. His snarl has
> been one since 78, but now when you hear a
> 2005-2006 boot, there's barely hints of expression
> of any sort - especially the way he just
> stacottally honks out the phrases for the
> warhorses.
>
> I'm too embarrassed as a fan to play any boots
> from the last tour to any friends of mine who know
> what a huge fan I am.
>
> They're now a keyboard-horn band with a great bass
> player and a click-tracked drummer. Mick, whose
> voice WAS such a huge part of the essence of the
> Stones for me, has got to make some changes
> because if they keep the way they're going now,
> their performance problems which are brought on by
> age (NO ONE can deny this) will really start to
> make them look foolish.
>
> I mean, their energy and sound has been all their
> one saving grace from cynics and critics from
> 1989-2003. Even some of their hmost hard-core fans
> gave those 'uh-oh' looks on their latest tour
> (albiet more so because of Keith - he's just lost
> nowadays).
>
> From all the shows I've seen, and all the boots
> I've heard, that most recent gig where Mick sounds
> like how I love him to sound, nailing every song
> and just sounding 'cool' - is Webster Hall, 1993.


perhaps you should be redubbed vintagejaggerfan?