Jagger was great in the'70-s as a performance, but the quality of singing is now better.His voice is far better now IMO.

After last year, I am playing it safe by going to Frankfurt and Paris, which are hopefully early enough in the tour, and to O2, which is at the end so we should know in advance if those shows get cancelled. I agree with another post that questions why they don't simply spread out the shows in the schedule a bit more. The Spain/Portugal leg looks particularly brutal, with 5 shows in 10 days.

Thu Jun 21 2007 Stadi Olimpic Montjuic Barcelona Spain 60,000 CONFIRMED
Sat Jun 23 2007 Anoeta Stadium San Sebastian Spain 30,000 CONFIRMED
Mon Jun 25 2007 Estadio Jose Alvalade XXI Lisbon Portugal 50,000 CONFIRMED
Thu Jun 28 2007 Estadio Vicente Calderón Madrid Spain 55,000 CONFIRMED
Sat Jun 30 2007 Estadio de Santo Domingo - map El Ejido, Almeria Spain 52,000 CONFIRMED

No problems. Stones camp is ready:
Bilbao 98, Benidorm 03, Valladolid 06, El Ejido 06...

Cross your fingers. Pray if you know. This year, YESSS, ONE shown in Spain, may be TWO, THREE, FOUR (dreaming).

See you in June.

"When Mick lost his voice in Nuremberg 1998..."

BV, i think the fact was a bit strange- wasn't it? Mick losing his voice during the FIRST show of a tour's leg, after 48 days of rest (26 April Toronto gig- 13 June Nuremberg), is not absolutely explainable thing, i guess. Am i wrong?

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick would never
> cancel a show unless he is unable to sing.
> Nothing, absolutely nothing, not even family
> matters have kept him from staying on stage.- He
> was on stage in Altlanta while Gabriel was born
> December 1997.

And he cancelled Atlanta 2006 because they had to rehearse Beacon. And at the Beacon JAGGER was singing an rehearsing, not Bernard.

So much for the fans.

Mathijs

>> And he cancelled Atlanta 2006 <<

Atlantic City

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> And he cancelled Atlanta 2006 because they had to
> rehearse Beacon.


I think you mean Atlantic City?

Today he sings like a grown man, Vegas rock opera. The 70s was pure magic.

1. First of all, Atlantic City was cancelled because Mick could not sing that nigh. You may speculate and make conspiracy theories about Beacon big bucs or whatever, but fact is he was loosing his voice. All other statements on this issue will be personal statements a la Elvis is still alive and Paul McCartney is dead because he was bare footed on the Abbey Road album cover etc.

2. Who said Mick was singing at the Beacon rehearsals every night? Someone who was inside actually watching Mick? as far as I remember Bernard was actually doing parts of those rehearsals. I have been at most of these sites and I have seen and heard Bernard many times at rehearsals. Also in Toronto. Also at the Beacon. May be people trust what is posted on internet, but a lot of what people say on internbet is not correct, simple as that.

3. Mick is usually loosing his voice at the start of tours or tour legs. Because he is flying in from a different climate. Happened many times. Same if he is having a break or changing continent or going north-south or the other way around. But as the years have been going by he has been more clever in arriving early, so many days ahead that he is able to adapt to the climate and the changes. Just to tell you the tour starts (new part i.e. touring after a break in the tour) he had problems with. All these are at the first show of a new leg:

Jan 05 1998 Quebec, Canada Laryngitis - delay
Jun 13 1998 Nuernberg Germany Lost his voice during the show
Jan 25 1999 Oakland, CA Confirmed Lost his voice during the show
Aug 5 2003 Benidorm Spain Laryngitis after show in Toronto

Guess why they rehearse in Toronto and just cross the border south of Canada during tour start? Not just because of tax and Cohl or Keith's history there. Also because it is a safe way of being close and within the same zones/areas.

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. First of all, Atlantic City was cancelled
> because Mick could not sing that nigh. You may
> speculate and make conspiracy theories about
> Beacon big bucs or whatever, but fact is he was
> loosing his voice.

I know for a fact that the band including Jagger was rehearsing in the Beacon. Additional rehearsels for the Beacon were held due to the filming (rehearsing stage positions etc.) and rehearsels for guest musicians took place. Jagger was there, and he was singing.

>
> 2. Who said Mick was singing at the Beacon
> rehearsals every night? Someone who was inside
> actually watching Mick?

Yes, somebody who watched the band rehearse.

Mathijs

Of course Mick was singing at the Beacon during the reheasals. But not every song every night. I know it is a common misunderstanding. I was there.

Bjornulf

I don't understand why bv is still answering this. Matthijs is a die-hard Stones fan who lost part of his faith/joy in the stones. It's ok, I respect that, but I'm a fan for years too. I can be objective to and I hear Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ron play as hard and dedicated as ever.

Laryngitis or not, it's not an issue, if you're a fan you'll be at the venue.

I simply hope the stones are never going to be perfect, it wouldn't be the stones I became to love anymore. Some musical technicians like matthijs can't get over that. Of course the is a show element, (posing, background singing) but as I have stood in front row in many stones concerts I always saw and heard total dedication of the complete 'core'-bandmembers.

KeithDaMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand why bv is still answering this.
> Matthijs is a die-hard Stones fan who lost part of
> his faith/joy in the stones. It's ok, I respect
> that, but I'm a fan for years too. I can be
> objective to and I hear Mick, Keith, Charlie and
> Ron play as hard and dedicated as ever.


whats his lack of enthusiasm about the latter day Stones got to do with stating that he KNOWS Mick was singing in rehearsals at the Beacon? Especially when he's absolutely correct.

>
> Laryngitis or not, it's not an issue, if you're a
> fan you'll be at the venue.

How is it 'not an issue' if the show gets postponed? What has being a fan got to do with the artist's ability to perform the show? A bizarre statement.

Anyway, one thing bv said is true - it's very likely that shows get postponed/canceled again because of Mick having laryngitis....

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1962 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I agree that Jagger's vice is far better then
> e.g.
> > in the 70's.He is brilliant these days, also
> the
> > performance.
>
>
> You gotta be kidding. Sorry, but Mick was at his
> best in the 70s no doubt about it. Keith too.


Keith's singing voice was better in the 70's? Huh? Keith rarely mastered the art of singing into the microphone onstage until he fronted his own band in 1988. His onstage singing (and phrasing) improved dramatically after that. On the Licks tour especially, he was really good I thought.

Any singers learn new tricks and techniques as they mature. Jagger may not have the vocal range he used to but his breath control and ability to pace himself through the rigours of a two hour performance has led to a level of consistency onstage in his later years that he simply didnt have during the 70s and 80s. Ongoing occasional problems with laryngitis aside, his performance levels as a singer are quite astonishing for a man in his 60s.

Lorenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, one thing bv said is true - it's very
> likely that shows get postponed/canceled again
> because of Mick having laryngitis....


Fingers crossed that they wont. 30 shows (max) in 12 weeks this year isnt an overly arduous schedule, plus its at a time of year when the weather should be good.

Yeah, let's hope it won't happen, I would hate to see my shows (and those of others) postponed or canceled again... There is lots of space between shows, so there is time for Mick to recover in case it happens.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-27 00:02 by Lorenz.

Thanks, BV... Thanks for this thread. I completly agree with you, the problem is not laryngitis, a palm tree or whatever the way I see it. The clue is - that people get angry when they miss a show - which is fully understandable. I'll bet you'll see me complaining if something happens that cause any of "my" shows being cancelled this summer.. But anyway..

Concerning Mick's laryngitis I think the one person who deserves to worry the most about it, is Mick himself. Not for the business part of it, but for the entertainment - the musical part of it. I honestly don't think he'll cancel a show just for the sake of it. I don't care for what reason, but I honestly trust that he won't cancel a show unless he absolutely has to. The one person that the laryngitis bothers the most is Mick himself, and I might be naive, but I'm sure that Mick really is the one who is most worried about this, more than anyone else... And bearing in mind, Keith's incident last year; Ok, we might miss a show - but what's more worth, the show or Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnies health. Really?

(Ok.. I've been out drinking tonight, but I hope I get my message through anyway. Cheers!)

- mjOL

LA FORUM wrote:

(A) "Today he sings like a grown man, Vegas rock opera."

You must be kidding... Oh, this boring, vapid clishe about "Las Vegas"...

(A) "The 70s was pure magic."

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Unless you like his "something-like-singing" on HTW, from LYL album. Or the his singing on Brown Sugar. Or his completely out of tune singing on SFTD (same album).

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LA FORUM wrote:
>
> (A) "Today he sings like a grown man, Vegas rock
> opera."
>
> You must be kidding... Oh, this boring, vapid
> clishe about "Las Vegas"...
>

That's right, this Vegas thing really is utter bulls%&it. If you want to see what a Vegas show is like, just watch Guns'n Roses live in Argentina 1992.

Mathijs:
Wait. Let me understand you right. You're saying that at the night of the original Atlantic City concert, Mick was at the Beacon to do rehearsals and that's why they postponed AC?

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathijs:
> Wait. Let me understand you right. You're saying
> that at the night of the original Atlantic City
> concert, Mick was at the Beacon to do rehearsals
> and that's why they postponed AC?


That's common knowledge, Kent.

Not to me, but I'm not common either.
Slap some proof on the table please. A pic, some sound, anything....

JumpingKentFlash

PHHHHHUUUUURRRP........

If we take the less optimistic view with regard to BV's feelings, and now that the third o2 show is confirmed, those of us booked for the second show might start to twitch a little...cos that's the one that would probably go ! ;^)

Mind you, an indoor show at a new venue with a less than stuffed itenary should be quite easy to re-arrange over a short timescale if it were to become necessary.

i reckon if a show is to be sacrificed, around this time,
it'll be Slane Castle.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to me, but I'm not common either.
> Slap some proof on the table please. A pic, some
> sound, anything....


yeah like people are really going to have recordings and photos of it.

He didnt say it was the same night as AC. He was at the Beacon rehearsing on the nights preceding the show. Which IS common knowledge and which was commented on in detail at the time.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not to me, but I'm not common either.
> > Slap some proof on the table please. A pic,
> some
> > sound, anything....
>
>
> yeah like people are really going to have
> recordings and photos of it.
>
> He didnt say it was the same night as AC. He was
> at the Beacon rehearsing on the nights preceding
> the show. Which IS common knowledge and which was
> commented on in detail at the time.


Why wouldn't they? Are you really saying that it's impossible that a guy inside the Beacon working for the Stones, brought an Ipod to record sound or had a camera cell phone with him?

JumpingKentFlash

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Jagger's voice is the least of all problems. The
> biggest challenge for Mick is a sober Keith and
> Wood, not the climate or his voice. A Stones show
> of the last couple years is set up in such a way
> that any of the four Stones except Charlie can
> drop dead on stage and nobody in the audience will
> notice.
>
> Face it: the Stones only tour for the money,
> skimming the market for the last dollar of the
> last fan standing.
>
> Sad but true.
>
> Mathijs

At least you might notice when Woody won't play. You'll miss the wrong notes

About the money: The band called Rolling Stones that I loved in earlier years has been dead for some years now. That equally named business corporation consisting of a bunch of mostly drunken guitar players and some greedy "managers" has only one business model: Melk those customers as long as possible who still believe that this company is still the Stones we loved so bad. Therefore you can now sit down even on the field - just to make worth the prices?

To keep it with Mathijs: Sad but true!

Disagree. They said themselves that they tour partly for the money and also because they love it.

JumpingKentFlash