i miss the high notes, however; it's a shame that its the backup singers who sing the orgasm part of she was hot: "into the human zoo!!!" etc. . .

*and i'm just like that bird - singing just for you*

fukk you
mick is the greatest singer in the world

So this is the final score now I think:

Mick rules : 50
Macca the pussycat : 1

Did I miss something?

Bjornulf

BV, have you been on the Cherry Brandy this avo?

Mick Jagger is singing just fine, now and always. Remember, Michael Phillip Jagger is the greatest. No one comes close.

Certainly an dead-end thread. The examples posted on page 1....1990 Paint It Black and 1997 Sympathy For The Devil...2 of the few songs where Jagger does sing a bit sterile, pick just about any other performance and the statement "Mick sings terrible" will fall flat down just by clicking the youtube-link
And I agree with Bong, the backupsingers actually ruin some songs - Mick should be alone in charge, for instance Let's Spend The Night Together and JJFlash

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So this is the final score now I think:
>
> Mick rules : 50
> Macca the pussycat : 1
>
> Did I miss something?


bv please can we have a new facility for the IORR board: I would LOVE the option to reply "Yawn", or similar, to a thread like this without pushing it back up to the top of the list. Oops, there it goes back up the list again!

PIB from '90 and SFTD from '97 are examples of GOOD singing. Let' face it, one of the reasons Stones songs are so great is Micks howl. I'm sorry, but he doesn't cut it live anymore. The voice is strained beyond repair. IORR is now a spoken song, same with Brown Sugar, SFTD, JJflash, and the dreadful live HTW. I'm sorry, but the vocals on these songs on record and past live shows are what made them so great. Now they are tired and boring due to Micks poor performanc VOCALLY. He's still a maniac on stage, but puts too much emphasis on dance moves and less on singing. Many people HATED the superbowl show due to Micks lack of singing. That's what I heard from people I worked with. That's one of the reasons we dislike the warhorses now. It's the way they are sung.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-18 17:43 by slybri74.

prat!

At 63, you cant have best of both worlds anymore, we were either guna get a vocally stronger show, but with a much less energetic mick, concentrating more on the singing, or an energetic performance that is vocally poorer, n mick made that decision for us...and in all honest truth, i reckon he made the better choice-if he wasnt still bouncing around the stage for 2hrs the stones would not sell nearly as many tickets.FACT.

True. Then let Bernard do lead, and Mick can do backing vocals and dance all he wants.

Told you. Prat!

This is ridiculous. Mick's singing is, in spots, mannered, and sometimes he puts it on automatic, but he is singing as well as he has ever sung live. Boot fans know -- he hit more wrong notes in one show during the 75 tour than he did all last year. He is a consummate professional.

I gotta agree with him on this. Listen to the Glasgow songs -- most are just spoken.

J

I didn't even bother to reqd the threqd but i just want to say that Jagger is singing fantasticly. Maybe you prefer the way he screamed and yelled instead of sang in '81 or the drugged out voices in the seventies, they all had there charm, but these days he is really singing and beautifull might i add! If you think he should do better then look at the other singers his age or 20 years younger and how they sing live and don't move at all!

Cheers,
Wuudy

JMARKO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I gotta agree with him on this. Listen to the
> Glasgow songs -- most are just spoken.
>
> J


Bad example to give considering its common knowledge he was battling laryngitis for the 2 weeks before it and the Twickenham show that preceded that show was literally minutes away from being cancelled.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So now Jagger is terrible? Jagger, Richards and
> Wood are all shot yet they mangage to draw tons of
> people to their concerts? I guess Watts must be
> the whole band these days.
>
> I predict in a few days we will have someone
> griping that Watts is no good anymore. Utterly
> laughable. Say hello to the other nuts when you
> get back to the asylum slybri74.

Watts has never been a rock 'n roll drummer, he's more into jazz as we all know ....... sorry I just couldn't let go! ;-)

Wilco

Mick is technically a better singer these days, but nothing compares to the Mick of the 60's and 70's when he could add that raspy yell to his singing at all the right moments (His smooth singing on Sway and then the screaming/yelling parts). The constant barking of '75 and '76 could get annoying at times, but when ever the yelling is placed right, it just sounds so organic. Mick used to have more power in his voice, and this can't be disputed. He's older, he's been singing rock and roll for over 40 years. It's bound to happen. His voice sounds alot more nasally these days too. Play someone a track of Mick singing a warhorse in the 60's (before it was a warhorse) and then play them a clip of him singing the same song now. It doesn't even sound like the same guy.

He has showed signs of still having "power" in recent years. That's How Strong My Love is off of the Four Flicks DVD's is a wonderful example of Mick's ability as a performer....he sings, he yells, he dances, he interacts with the crowd.

Look, I'm not saying Mick can't do it anymore. He can. I'm not disputing that Mick is one of the greatest performers of all time, I just don't know why we should lie and say everything is still perfect. I'm seeing a trend here. Keith has gone way down, Ron's decent when he wants to be, Mick's voice is ok but has lost alot of power and as for Charlie...look, as much as I love the guy, he's been playing the same beat for the past 20 years. My point is, they are getting older, so their not bound to be as good as they used to be. I realize their like a torn blanket for some of you, where it's been with you all your life and you realize it's not as good anymore but your afraid to let go (or you just don't want to lie to yourself and admit it's not keeping you as warm anymore) - but your witnessing the end of the Stones right before your eyes.

Oh and don't tell me not to go to shows, or to leave the board, or whatever other automatic crap you guys spit out because I'm not going anywhere. I'm a fan, I just call it as I see it, and I respect other people's opinions as well.

Here's why the Stones were the greatest band in the world at one point:

Listen/Watch from 4:23 to the end







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-18 20:10 by deuce.

>>Oh and don't tell me not to go to shows, or to leave the board, or whatever other automatic crap you guys spit out because I'm not going anywhere. I'm a fan, I just call it as I see it, and I respect other people's opinions as well.<<

Says something about the board these days



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-18 20:26 by Erik_Snow.

Apparently no horse is ever so dead that some folks just won't quit beating it.

Thanks for the 1997 SFTD link.

Never mind the singing (which is good) - Mick's demeanour is really great. He isn't having to skip about (pratt about) - he's totally into delivering meaning, not random athleticism.

And how about Keith' s guitar - that's where you see the real difference between Keith of yore and Keith of now.

I think Mick does fine. He has his bad days and good days. When they played Vancouver back in Nov 06 he certainly sang the best he did in years. Even Seattle was great. Now all I need is a copy of these shows!

what a strange world. you can do everything right, be the greatest of all times, doing fantastic performances every night like no one else,still improve even with 63 years and still you can not please everyone.

Apparently SOME people do agree with me. I wasn't trying to knock Mick or the band, but to say his vocals are better than ever is ridiculous. His voice is very weak and nasaly, and such a voice does great displeasure nowadays to great songs like SFTD,PIB, Gimme Shelter. He does still sound good on the ballads.

The constant barking of '75 and '76 could
> get annoying at times, but when ever the yelling
> is placed right, it just sounds so organic.

Yes, organic, alive and cool. Rock n roll.

Bla bla bla, have you who think he sings better than ever or that Keith plays guitar like the devil heard anthing from the Stones in their 70s or 60s?? Or 80s? I bet he can still make their songs great but he probably has to relax and not focus on singing like Loa Falkman. I miss the feeling he expresses in that Love in vain clip to name one. Or the funky, punky rock attitude of 1975 or 1973.

Micks good to be 64.
Come on , he's not 30 or 40 years anymore.
He's the best grandpa singer in the world!

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

WOH this is absolute rubbish, technically, mick can still hit INTENSE notes nowadays, his singing has improved greatly, as well as breath enhancement and POWER to the voice (see. SFM, JJF,YGMR,SMU,MR etc etc), some of the numbers he sings are better than others, but the sympathy for the devil he's done during the ABB tour is intense! the high falsetto scream at the end he hasnt done since like..the 70's! and he took voice lessons which improved his voice greatly, WHILE doing all the dancing/running on stage, i mean its mick jagger, if he COULDNT sing anymore..he wouldnt be up there..people would tell him, and the stones are out there to compete with themselves and others, they;re out there to show you what they're doing right now, and so far, they're winning big time, bringing in hundreds of millions on the biggest tour of all time!

As for the lyrics and words-singin he certainly pronounced words differently when singing, its the intense cocky accent as well as getting older, your vocal chords change i mean...some people in their 60s are very wheezy and croaky, so we're very lucky to have mick with such power, clarity, and strength to his voice, DO YOU EVER HEAR HIM OUT OF BREATH ON STAGE!!! NO!!!! you dont! do you want to?? is THAT WHAT YOU WANT???? NO i didnt think so!Mick Jagger sings the way he sings nowadays so it can still be an amazing performance, and i think hes at his prime now most definately! Hes a rock n' roll singer...not a damn american idol contestant, you want exact vocals, listen to the album versions, you want a raw, powerful intreaguing vocal performance THE ROLLING STONES WILL ROCK YOUR WORLD!!!!(see ABB dvd boxset for proof)

I have to say i agree with slybri74 100 per cent. Mick to me sounds as flat as a pancake and it's true there's no growl or vitality in any of his vocals. How anyone can say he sings as well or better than ever is beyond me. It's also beyond me how no-one at least understands where slybri74 is coming from. I wouldn't have raised this subject myself as i'm secure enough in my own thoughts to not need justification from others but when it comes to accusing what slybri74 says is a joke or rubbish - that's where i feel he deserves defending.

slybri74 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently SOME people do agree with me. I wasn't
> trying to knock Mick or the band, but to say his
> vocals are better than ever is ridiculous. His
> voice is very weak and nasaly, and such a voice
> does great displeasure nowadays to great songs
> like SFTD,PIB, Gimme Shelter. He does still sound
> good on the ballads.


Who are you man, you remind me the good old kung-fu actor, who 'won't even talk to me, but he wants to show me, how to dance'.
I can imagine you sitting at home listening to boots and saying ' oh what a nasal note was that'. When you eventually can make it to see a show live you will hear that Mick's voice is not weak at all, well whether it is nasal or not I don't really know...