Can anybody on this board honestly say when Mick sings "Heartbreaker" that its powerful or good. The recent versions from opening night Fenway to Europe '07 are absolutely embarassing. Why would he want to put himself through that. Doesn't anybody have the balls to tell him his singing is HORRID I mean HORRID on that number.

I don't mean to add fuel to slybri74's fire, but I would agree that mick's voice is not much fun to listen to anymore. Yes, he gives a good effort and is remarkable for his age, but... the age is the thing. He sounds like an old man on most songs. He tries to get the most out of what he has left, but's in a very nasal register.

the age is the thing! LOL!!! we all have been wainting for this post LOL!!!

you can not sound like being 20 when you are 60. if you want that you need to listen to another band.
the skills to sing are still there, he even improved, has a bigger range, pitches better. i think he no longer sings with a teenager attitude, but i mean he is no teenager anymore, so it wouldn´t fit and that would be embarrassing.

i think you can not age better than mick, i mean everything, his looks, his behaviour, his singing, and his will to always progress, to always keep interested in new things. and to have success with what you do.

he is an idol, musically, and as a person.

As excited as I was when the Stones finally played Sway, I had to admit, the song (as arranged) was pushing Jagger's range. But as the ABB tour went on, later tour versions kept sounding better...clearly he worked at it.

And that's the thing that I have grown to really marvel about MJ, he works hard to be able to do what he does every night.

And whatever he's lost is nothing compaired to a guy like Robert Plant who lost who whole signature singing range. He can't even pretend to be that guy anymore.

A singer myself I can only admire Jagger for his performance.
His melodic creativity on records is great and on stage he still delivers.

I love the version of Satisfaction on Biggest Bang DVD from texas. Micks growling through the ENTIRE song. It sounds great! Sadly, upon further inspection, it's a clear overdub. Why for the love of god can't he do it on stage like the way he overdubs. GOMC,parts of JJ Flash,and parts of SFTD are dubbed as well. Apparently he likes his growl too. Just do it on stage then Mick, and you won't have to worry about the dubs.

mick was singing great tonight!!!!!!!! this subject is bollocks... tomorrow off to barcelona

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Were his vocals dubbed tonight in Lyons?

Singing live is a completely different ballgame opposed to singing in the controled environment of a recording studio. Keep in mind that he has to save his voice for a row of shows to come. In the studio you can decide to give it all and screw up and do retakes untill you get it totally right.

I think that Mick singing has improved a lot. He is excellent in singing and dancing and animating a show.

He s the best performer....

I agree, Britney. He obviously wants his voice to sound a certain way, hence the dubs on Satisfaction,SFTD,GOMC,etc on BANG Austin DVD. My point is, if he can't pull it off live and has to go dub vocals with his old "growl" then whats the point of performing live??

As far as saving his voice is concerned. If he has to save his voice and put on a less than terrific VOCAL NOT PHYSICAl performance, than they should
A. charge less $$ for tix (yeah right)
B.quit. I hope not
C. Do less shows in a week. Do 2 shows a week instead of 3-4. Stronger vocal performances should be heard then. 1 person said he already heard starin in Mick's voice the other night. That's NOT good, and bodes for poor VOCAL performances for the rest of the tour. Why spend the $$$ just to hear Mick "hide" behind the backing vocals and sing everything flat and out of key.
"Hope you gepped my name"

Dang,
Sounds like ya'll want the band to lip-sync the whole show.

Donkey Girl Scout Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dang,
> Sounds like ya'll want the band to lip-sync the
> whole show.

LOL. That way we will get a new kind of fok ups, like this one





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-19 05:06 by Sohoe.

If there was ever a needless thread, this is it.

Long John Stoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there was ever a needless thread, this is it.


Yeah and you've made multiple replies in it

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


Why bring McCartney into this?

I declair shenanigans on this thread and on slybri74!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-19 08:43 by ryanpow.

Basically we all should accept that the voice of a 60+-year-old singer has no more got the dynamics and vitality of a younger man, regardless of how much you are training it. There are lots of examples (recently I saw a Foreigner clip 'I wanna know what love is' where Lou Gramm sang just horrible!! And they still tour!).
Thus, you simply cannot compare the tours of yesteryear vocalwise with the recent tours. If you listen to Midnight rambler from Brussels 1973 and from Saitama 2006 in a row you will notice the big difference in the singing technique and in the vocal range which strinkingly indicates the aging process of Jagger's voice. When you are younger it's just easier to sing powerfully.
Joe Cocker, Ian Gillan or Van Morrison really are no longer capable of performing in the 'excessive' vocal style they became famous for in the 1960s and 1970s. If an artist changes his repertoire along with his loss of vocal power it's just alright.

micks voice has changed but He can still fu*ckign belt it out. With some artists, you have to kind of strain your hearing and say "well parts of this song are good" not so with mick.

monkeyman07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stop bothering the stones
> theyre just fine.

well i think mick is singing fine...
i remember general opinion in an amazing amount of press and fans, both casual and dedicated...was that, especially in licks...mick was blowing minds with his sound and phrasing and note capture etc...friends from the hollywood bowl to nyc were raving about it...and the hbo 1-2003 live thing confirmed that for me...(I haven't seen any of the versions that might have been dubbed and/or remixed, ala the live licks album) got my copies live...and think it's really top notch...and i don't think he's slipping...he's amazing...
i know the thread says 'live'...and 'live' sources are always variable unless u r there and have great sonics and placement...but i recently heard studio track on his brother's album; and the clarity and honey voiced warmth and growl and playfulness and facility that he had on banquet or others...is still so absolutely 'there'...i may and do critize the nature of the band presentation, but mick's voice is killer...and my criticisms are only happy ones cause i can envision them going on and on and on longer than anyone here, even the diehards, could imagine...if and when they evolve some presentation dynamics...
mick sings great...love it...

Britney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Singing live is a completely different ballgame
> opposed to singing in the controled environment of
> a recording studio. Keep in mind that he has to
> save his voice for a row of shows to come.

That's it. If he gives everything and cries his heart out it would only make a handful of fans who really notice the difference happier than they already are, but if he shoots his voice by doing so and sings real bad at the next show EVERYBODY would notice it. Even worse if gigs have to be cancelled because he shot his voice at a certain gig! So it is quite understandable if he saves his voice a bit at shows. Please keep in mind that a voice is not an instrument like a guitar who can be replaced when a string gets broken. Even if he sings more controlled nowadays than, let's say in the 70's, he's still the best. And I can live without Saturday Night Live '78 vocal performances...!

> In the studio you can decide to give it all and screw up
> and do retakes untill you get it totally right.

Yes, and if your sing your heart out in the studio and shoot your voice by doing so, it's much easier to arrange a new studio date for other overdubs than to arrange new dates for shows!

Can't we put this crap to bed? Its a pointless exercise. slybri74 has made his point (over and over and over)

The subject is so irritating. Please change it: "Mick's live singing is fantastic now!"

you are totally wrong man when you liten to Mick "the best frontman in the universe" last night.

So good, so professional (he worked hard in the middle 90's to maintain his voice to a such level).
Some days he may be less better but are you always in shape ? and have you 63 !!???

As Mononom says this subject is Bollocks

I think you are totally wrong. I saw the first Twickenham concert last year and I think he sings much better now and has been doing so during the latest tours. I remember the concet in Gothenburg 1982 and I also remember that I didn't like his singing then. It was more shouting and running around the stage. Nowadays he really sings and does it good especially the ballads but also the rockers. Sometimes out of tune - yes - but that is only a proof that he is singing there and then.
Mats

Mick is great. What more is there to say?

FARAWAY EYES Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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...


Just compare clips on youtube, boots, records or whatever. If I dont want to pay lots of money cause I have paid lots of money and not been satisfied despite being a fan that says it all. Weak or not, I miss the spontanity, the soul of Jagger, the way he sang, growling or not. He was hot.